Allowed

Vijayakumar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC4 Sept 2024CRL OP(MD)/6236/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings in a matrimonial dispute involving offences under Sections 294(b), 406 and 506(1) IPC. Following Gian Singh and Parbathbhai Aahir, the court quashed the case against them on a joint compromise memo dated 27.03.2024.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.85 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai District quashed as against the petitioners; joint compromise memo made part of the order.

Vijayakumar Vs The Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6236 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6236 of 2024

¶7

1.Vijayakumar

¶8

2.Dhanam

¶9

3.Sathish @ Satheesh Kumar

¶10

4.S.Bhavani ... Petitioners

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thilagar Thidal, Madurai City, Madurai. (Crime No.6 of 2019)

¶13

2.M.Sekar ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S., to call for the records in C.C.No.85 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, Madurai District in connection with Crime No.6 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6236 of 2024

¶18

Police Station, Thilagar Thidal, Madurai City, Madurai and consequently quash the same forthwith.

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Sankarapandian For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.M.Pon Aravindh

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 528 B.N.S.S., seeking orders to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.85 of 2020 pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai District.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant's daughter was solemnized on 26.01.2011, that some dispute arose between them and they got separated and that in so many occasions, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant and her daughter in filthy language.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first

¶24

2/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6236 of 2024

¶27

respondent and on that basis, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.6 of 2019 and after investigation and filing of the final report, the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.85 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai District for the offences under Sections 294(b), 406 and 506(1) IPC against five persons including the petitioners/ accused 1 and 3 to 5. He would further submit that the second accused Gurusamy died on 27.05.2020 and he has also produced the death certificate of the second accused.

¶28

The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶29

A Joint Memo of Compromise dated 27.03.2024 has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsels. The petitioners and the second respondent are present before this Court and and they were identified by Mr.S.Shyamala Devi, Special Sub Inspector, All Women Police Station South as well as by the learned counsels

¶30

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6236 of 2024

¶32

appearing for the parties. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶33

In the instant case, it is a matrimonial dispute and the parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has to power to quash the complaint for the offence under Sections 294(b), 406 and 506(1) IPC.

¶34

The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

¶35

case of Gian Singh vs. State of Panjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) reported in (2017)9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.

¶36

In the light of the guidelines issued in the above said Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings in C.C.No.85 of 2020 as against the petitioners pending before the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai District, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

¶37

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6236 of 2024

¶39

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the

¶40

proceedings in C.C.No.85 of 2020, on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai District, is quashed as against the petitioners and the joint compromise memo dated 27.03.2024 shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶41

04.09.2024

¶42

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No csm

¶43

¶44