Madras High Court
Dharmaraj vs State Rep. By on 16 December, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.21642 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.21642 of 2021
Dharmaraj ... Petitioner
Versus
1.State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Padalur Police Station,
Perambalur District,
(Crime No.185 of 2018)
2.Dharmalingam ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in connection with the
impugned FIR in Crime No.185 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijayaragavan
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21642 of 2021
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in
connection with the impugned FIR in Crime No.185 of 2018 on the file of
the first respondent and quash the same.
2.The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time,
the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute
amicably among themselves.
3.On 09.12.2021, this Court passed the following order:
“The petitioner, who is an accused in
Crime no.185 of 2018, had filed this quash
petition.
2.Initially, the case in Crime No.185 of
2018 registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. on
the complaint of one Dharmalingam, who is
father-in-law of the petitioner and thereafter,
altered into 306 of IPC. The marriage between
the petitioner and one Divya, who is the
daughter of the second respondent/defacto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21642 of 2021
complainant, took place during the year 2016.
Out of wedlock, a male child was born and both
were living happily for some time. Since the mle
child had some birth defects in the left leg, i.e.,
the small finger, inclined inward, which caused
mental depression to the said Divya. Hence,
there was frequent quarrel between the
petitioner and his wife with regard to the same.
Due to which, on 22.06.2018, she committed
suicide by hanging. Thereafter, RDO conducted
enquiry and found that there was no dowry
demand and suicide was due to some other
reason, which has to be investigated. Now, the
petitioner had come along with his father-in-
law/defacto complainant for compromise quash.
3.Today, the petitioner and the defacto
complainant/father-in-law of the petitioner,
present before this Court and expressed their
willingness to compromise.
4.The 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant
admits that the petitioner is taking care of his
grand son, who is aged about 5 years, they are
having cordial relationship with each other. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21642 of 2021
is convinced that petitioner/son-in-law is not the
reason for his daughter committing suicide, it
might be due to her depression. The petitioner
is not an abettor, defacto complainant enquired
with his relatives and found that it was a normal
family quarrel between the petitioner and the
deceased. The petitioner is taking care of his
grand son, both petitioner and defacto
complainant are visiting each other. They
maintain cordial relationship. Further, in the
interest of his grand son defacto complainant
wants to compromise the case, not intended in
further pursuing the case, which would only
prove defermental.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner
produced a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir
@ Parbathbhai /vs/ State of Gujrath reported in
2017 (9) SCC 641.
6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.
Side) seeks small accommodation to verify with
the respondent police about the stage of the
case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21642 of 2021
Post the matter on 16.12.2021.”
4.Today, this matter is taken up for hearing. In continuation of the
earlier order dated 09.12.2021, passed by this Court, the joint
compromise memo filed by the petitioner and the second respondent and
the contents of the joint compromise memo was verified. Further
investigation is still pending.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first
respondent also confirms the same.
6.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in
keeping the FIR pending, even though, the offences involved are not
compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir
@ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), and after exercising due caution
as advised by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in The State of Madhya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21642 of 2021
Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10,
this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes
the Crime No.185 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent.
7.In view of the above said fact, this Court is inclined to allow this
Criminal Original Petition.
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.185 of 2018 on the file of the
first respondent, is quashed on the terms of the joint memo of
compromise filed by the petitioner and the second respondent, which
shall form part and parcel of this order.
16.12.2021 Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
ah
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Padalur Police Station,
Perambalur District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21642 of 2021
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
ah
CRL.O.P.No.21642 of 2021
16.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
