Allowed

Sneka v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Sept 2024CRL OP(MD)/6237/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition sought quashing of C.C.No.321 of 2023 involving non-compoundable offences arising from a family dispute. The parties filed a joint compromise memo. Relying on Supreme Court precedents permitting quashal post-compromise, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.321 of 2023 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam quashed as against the petitioners; joint compromise memo dated 15.08.2024 made part of the order.

Sneka Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6237 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6237 of 2024

¶7

1.Sneka

¶8

2.Parkavi

¶9

3.Silambarasan

¶10

4.Sivamala

¶11

5.Kannan

¶12

6.Mahadevan

¶13

7.Sharmila

¶14

... Petitioners

¶15

Vs.

¶16

1.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.326 of 2022)

¶17

2.Annakaluvaiye ... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for records pertaining to the complaint filed by the respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumangalam as C.C.No. 321 of 2023 and quash the same as against these petitioners.

¶19

1/6

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6237 of 2024

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Vijayaragavan For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.S.Pandikumar

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.321 of 2023 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam.

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that there existed family dispute

¶26

between the parties and that on 14.08.2022, when the second respondent went to the petitioners' house, the petitioners had attacked the second respondent and abused her in filthy language and also caused criminal intimidation.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent and on that basis, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.326 of 2022 and after investigation and filing of the final report, the same

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6237 of 2024

¶31

was taken cognizance in C.C.No.321 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) and 109 IPC and Sections 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 against the petitioners and is pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam.

¶32

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

¶33

A Joint Memo of Compromise dated 15.08.2024 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 Ms.S.Michammal, Women Special Sub Inspector, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, as well as by the learned counsels 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.

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6237 of 2024

¶36

In the instant case, it is a family dispute and the parties had

¶37

compromised. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has to power to quash the complaint for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) and 109 IPC and Sections 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

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.321 of 2023 as against the petitioners pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

¶41

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the

¶42

proceedings in C.C.No.321 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6237 of 2024

¶45

Magistrate, Thirumangalam, is quashed as against the petitioners and the joint compromise memo dated 15.08.2024 shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶46

11.09.2024

¶47

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

¶48

¶49