Madras High Court
Natarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 15 April, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11741 of 2017 and 10758 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11741 of 2017 and 10758 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8084 & 8085 of 2017 and 6767 & 6768 of 2019
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11741 of 2017:
1.Natarajan
2.Malarvizhi ...Petitioners
/Vs./
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
2.Subahashini ...Respondents
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10758 of 2019:
N.Sasikumar ...Petitioner
/Vs./
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
2.Subahashini ...Respondents
Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.339 of 2016
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur and to quash the
same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11741 of 2017 and 10758 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh (in both Crl OPs)
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
(in both Crl OPs)
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.A.Balakrishnan (in both Crl OPs)
COMMON ORDER
The case of the prosecution before the trial Court is that the marriage
between the second respondent with the son of the first petitioner in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11741 of 2017, was solemnized on 16.12.2015 at Murugan
Kovil, Rajapalayam as per the Hindu Customs Rites. At that time, the son
of the first petitioner was given 17 sovereigns of gold jewels, a cash of
Rs.25,000/- and other house hold articles. Later, the husband, the son of the
first petitioner demanded additional dowry such as a car along with 10
sovereigns of gold jewels and a cash of Rs.2,00,000/-. On 31.01.2016, the
petitioners herein abused the second respondent in filthy language stating
that she is not a lucky girl. She was also threatened and demanded jewels
and money. She was driven out of the matrimonial house forcibly.
Therefore, the second respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners.
On the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent, a case in
Crime No.13 of 2016 under Sections 294 (b), 498 (A) and 506 (i) of IPC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11741 of 2017 and 10758 of 2019
and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act,
2002 and the first respondent started the investigation, got the materials,
recorded the statements of the witnesses and finally final report was filed
against the petitioners alleging that they have committed the offences
punishable under Sections 294 (b), 498 (A) and 506 (i) of IPC and Section
4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002.
Challenging the final report seeking quashment, all the three accused have
preferred these Criminal Original Petitions.
2.Since it was 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 is as follows:
“ (i)The husband of the 2nd respondent namely,
N.Sasi Kumar, S/o.S.Natarajan who appeared before
the mediation pursuant to the orders of this Court has
agreed to pay full and final settlement amount of Rs.
7,25,000/- to the 2nd respondent namely Subashini by
way of Demand Draft bearing No.528268, drawn on
State Bank of India, Rajapalayam Branch, dated
13.12.2018.
(ii)The 2nd respondent namely Subhashini
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
ready to accept and receive the demand draft as
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11741 of 2017 and 10758 of 2019
permanent alimony and acknowledged the same
before the Mediation.
(iii)The 2nd respondent has already wtihdrawn
by the following cases in M.C.No.1 of 2017 and
D.V.O.P.No.1 of 2018 respectively on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam.
(iv)The 2nd respondent has no objection to
quash the C.C.No.339/2016 pending before the
Judicial Magistrate No.II, srivilliputhur.
(v)The 2nd respondent has already given no
objection to grant divorce filed by her husband in
H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2017 and the concerned Court
also granted divorce between the parties.
(vi)The 2nd petitioner already withdrawn the
suit filed by her in O.S.No.84 of 2017 against the 2 nd
respondent on the file of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur
and also the 2nd petitioner has withdrawn the
Crl.M.P.No.3442 of 2017 filed against the 2nd
respondent on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Rajapalayam.
(vii)Both parties have exchanged their own
belongings.
(viii)Both parties agreed that there will no
claim against each other in future. The parties also
agrees that they will not continue any proceedings
which are pending and initiate new proceedings with
regard to the issue referred above.
(ix)With the above condition, the 2nd
respondent has no objection to allow the Crl.O.P.
(MD)No.11741 of 2017.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11741 of 2017 and 10758 of 2019
3.From the mediation report, it is seen that the parties entered into the
terms arrived in the report and the second respondent herein was paid Seven
Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand rupees by way of demand draft and the
parties have also agreed to mutually dissolve the marriage by giving no
objection in H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2017.
4.The second respondent herein has no objection to quash the cases
against the petitioners in both the Criminal Original Petitions.
5.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”
6.In the case on hand, since it is a matrimonial dispute, the parties
have also reached the settlement and therefore, nothing survives in this case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11741 of 2017 and 10758 of 2019
for trial.
7.In view of the settlement reached between the parties, the case in
C.C.No.339 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Srivilliputtur, is quashed and both the Criminal Original Petitions stand
allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
15.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
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
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11741 of 2017 and 10758 of 2019
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
sm
Common Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11741 of 2017 & 10758 of 2019
Dated:
15.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
