Madras High Court
Mohan vs The State Rep. By on 21 April, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5089 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5089 of 2021
1. Mohan
2. Sakthi
3. Abirami
4. Bhuvaneshwari ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State Rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thirupparankundram,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.35 of 2020)
2. Harsini ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Crime No.35 of 2020 pending on the file
of the first respondent Police and quash the same against this petitioners.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.A.Ajmalkhan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Srinivasan
Government Advocate(crl.side)
For R1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/9
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5089 of 2021
ORDER
This petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.35
of 2020 dated 28.12.2020 pending investigation on the file of the first
respondent Police and quash the same against these petitioners.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner's son and
the defacto complainant lived in Dubai after their marriage. On the
request of the defacto complainant, the second petitioner went to Dubai
and took her from Dubai to India. After coming to India the defact
complainant conceived on 19.05.2018 and a girl baby namely Hanisha
was born. After delivery the defacto complainant never returned to the
Matrimonial home. Even after the advise of the petitioners 1 & 2 the
defacto complainant refused to come back. The third petitioner and
fourth petitioner are living in separate places with their own families.
There was no connection with the defacto complainant either with the
first petitioner or with the second petitioner. In order to harass the
petitioners' entire family members, the defacto complainant foisted this
false criminal complaint against them. Due to her false complaint, the
respondent police called the petitioners to the station daily. The first
respondent failed to conduct proper enquiry as contemplated by Law and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5089 of 2021
straight away registered the Criminal Case. The defacto complainant
already filed a divorce petition against her husband (first petitioner's son)
before the Family Court, Madurai in H.M.O.P.No.1117 of 2019 and same
is pending. In the above said divorce petition, the defacto complainant
did not mention the allegation which was stated in the present criminal
complaint in Cr.No.35 of 2020. It elucidated that the criminal complaint
is only an afterthought process of the defacto complainant in order to
harass the entire family members. In fact the criminal complaint suffers
on the ground of the jurisdiction. The defact complainant alleged that
the occurrences took place on Dubai and Dindigul as per her version. So
the Criminal Complaint registered before the respondent police is not
maintainable. The defacto complainant in order to harass the petitioners
filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.6338 of 2019 before the Mahila Court,
Madurai. The petitioners never committed any offence as alleged in the
impugned complaint. This Court ought to have considered that no
offences are made out against the petitioners in the impugned F.I.R.
There is no specific overt act as against the petitioners in the impugned
complaint. It is liable to be quashed. The third petitioner completed the
Degree of Bachelor of Engineering and the fourth petitioner completed
B.Sc., Chemistry degree. The first petitioner is the father-in-law of the
defacto complainant and he is aged about 65 years. The second petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5089 of 2021
is the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. The first respondent
failed to conduct proper enquiry before filing the impugned F.I.R. Our
Apex Court repeatedly held that in the matrimonial disputes the
respondent Police ought to have receive report from the Welfare
Department and conduct proper enquiry regarding the genuineness of the
Criminal Complaint. The F.I.R in Cr.No.35 of 2020, is without any legal
point, does not attract penal sections and is liable to set aside and
quashed.
3.Since it is a matrimonial dispute, the matter was referred to the
Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench
and the parties appeared before the Mediation Centre and a settlement
was also reached. The terms of settlement are also mentioned in the
Mediation report, which are as follows:
“ (I) As per the agreement these
Petitioners herein paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-
(Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) through demand draft
for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Tamilnadu Mercantile
Bank, Dindigul Branch, D.D.No.330436 dated
15.03.2021, Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank,
Dinidigul Branch D.D.No.504361, dated
15.03.2021, Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank,
Dindigul Branch D.D.No.405371 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5089 of 2021
17.03.2021 as full and final settlement.
(ii) The Marriage between the first
Petitioner's son Balaji and the respondent
O.K.Harshini may be dissolved by a decree of
divorce in the H.M.O.P.No.1117 of 2019 filed
before the Hon'ble Family Court, Madurai. The
parties are agree to co-operate before the Hon'ble
Family Court for getting the divorce decree in
H.M.O.P.No.1117 of 2019.
(iii) The D.V.O.P. Case filed by the
respondent O.K.Harshini in Cr.M.P.No.6338 of
2019 before the Hon'ble Additional Mahila Court,
(JM Level) Madurai may be withdrawn/dismissed
as regards the respondents by filing a copy of
compromise and joint memo within a week from
today and bring to the Courts notice the changed
circumstances and factum of this Compromise.
D. The respondent O.K.Harshini hereby
undertakes to withdraw the complaint filed by her
as against the petitioners and her husbnad Balaji
in Cr.No.35 of 2020 on the file of All Women
Police Station, Thirupparankundram, Madurai
within a week from today. The respondent
O.K.Harshini undertakes to give No Objection for
allowing the quash petition in Crl.O.P(MD).No.
7943 of 2021 filed by the petitioner for quashing
the above said Crime Number in Cr.No.35 of 2020
and further if the respondent's husband Balaji
filed any quash petition regarding the above said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5089 of 2021
Cr.No.35 of 2020, the respondent O.K.Harshini
undertake not to object the petitions if any in
future.
e) The respondent O.K.Harshini received
the Sreetthana properties from the petitioner's side
and both the parties exchanged their Sritthana
Articles, to that effect both of them executed the
deed separately.
f) Since the first and second petitioner's son
is working at abroad, the Respondent underttakes
to not to claim any amount from him in future and
she will not file any Criminal, Civil Cases against
the petitioner's side. The petitioner also
undertakes not to initiate any cases against the
respondent in future.
7. By signing the Agreement the Parties
hereto state that they have no further claims or
demands against each other with respect to
Crl.O.P(MD).No.2824 of 2021 in Cr.No.35 of
2020 on the file of the All Women Police Station,
Thirupparankundram, Madurai and all disputes
and differences in this regard have been amicably
settled by the Parties hereto through the process of
conciliation/mediation.”
4.From the mediation report, it is seen that the parties entered into
the terms arrived in the report and the petitioners herein have paid Eight
Lakhs rupees by way of demand draft and the parties have also agreed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5089 of 2021
mutually dissolve the marriage by giving no objection in HMOP.No.1117
of 2019.
5.The second respondent herein has no objection to quash the case
against the petitioners in the Criminal Original Petition.
6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment reported in
Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2019 in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others., has held as follows:
“ i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the
Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-
compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be
exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil
character, particularly those arising out of commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship of
family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire
dispute amongst themselves”
7. In the case on hand, since it is a matrimonial dispute and since
the parties have also reached the settlement, nothing survives in this case
for trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5089 of 2021
8.In view of the settlement reached between the parties, the case in
C.C.No.35 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent Police, is quashed
and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
21.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kmm
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thirupparankundram,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5089 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN. J.
kmm
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5089 of 2021
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
