R. Gokulakrishnan vs The Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 21819 Mad

                                                                              Crl.O.P.No.7920 of 2017

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED: 01.11.2021

                                                          CORAM

                                    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

                                                 Crl.O.P.No.7920 of 2017

                     R. Gokulakrishnan                                          ...Petitioner

                                                             vs.

                     1. The Inspector of Police,
                        K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station,
                        Chennai – 106.

                     2. R. Janagavalli

                     3. V. Rajendiran                                           ...Respondents

                     Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
                     Procedure Code to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in
                     Crime No.491 of 2017 on the file of respondent/complainant and quash the
                     same.
                                     For Petitioner      : M/S.J.Manikandan

                                     For R1              : Mr.L.Baskaran,
                                                           Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

                                     For R2 & R3         : Mr.T.V.G.Kartheeban, No appearance




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                Crl.O.P.No.7920 of 2017

                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking to quash the

proceedings in Crime No.491 of 2017 pending on the file of 1 st respondent

police and quash the same.

2. A complaint was given by the mother of the petitioner for the

alleged commission of offence under section 307 of IPC against the

petitioner herein who is none other than her own son. The victim was the

father of the petitioner. The respondent/police, based on the said complaint,

registered a case in Crime No.419 of 2017 under Section 307 IPC.

3. On earlier occasion, the parties have filed a compromise memo

dated 17.03.2017 stating that they amicably settled the issues among them

and all of them living together peacefully in the same house and in order to

find out the status among the parties, this Court by order dated 01.11.2021,

directed the defacto complainant, victim as well as the petitioner to appear

before this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7920 of 2017

4. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the defacto

complainant, victim and the petitioner appeared before the Court through

web hearing and reported that they are living together peacefully without

any issues and due to the sudden provocation, the petitioner has committed

the offence and they already pardoned their son.

5. Ms.Kalaivani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, also

identified the petitioner, defacto complainant and the victim, who appeared

before this Court through the video conferencing.

6. The above said statements made by the defacto complainant and

victim are recorded. No doubt, the offence punishable under Section 307

IPC is non-compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. However, this Court

after considering the fact that the parties have settled their scores amicably,

no fruitful purpose would be served to force upon the parties to undergo the

trial, as it would be a futile exercise with no logical conclusion, more

particularly, in view of the various judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court, one among such judgments is reported in "Mahesh Chand v. State of

Rajasthan" (1989 Crl.L.J.121). In this case, the accused were acquitted by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7920 of 2017

the trail court but were convicted by the High Court for the offence under

Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter the parties want to have

the offence compounded. While dealing with the above case, the Supreme

Court observed as follows (Paras 2, 3 and 4) :-

"The accused were acquitted by the trail court, but they were convicted by the High Court for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. This offence is not compoundable under law. The parties, however, want to treat it a special case, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is said and indeed not disputed that one of the accused is a lawyer practising in the lower court. There was a counter case arising out of the same transaction. It is said that this case has already been compromised. The decision of this court in Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1987) 2 JT 361, has been also referred to in support of the plea for permission to compound the offence.

We gave our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea forward for seeking permission to compound the offence. After examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed, it may be proper that the trail court shall permit them to compound the offence.

We, therefore, direct the trial Judge to accord permission to compound the offence, after giving an

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7920 of 2017

opportunity to the parties and after being satisfied with the compromise agreed upon .........."

Thus, in the above case the Supreme Court in the particular facts and

circumstances of that case held that it may be proper that the trail court shall

permit the parties to compound the offence and accordingly directed the

trail Judge to accord permission to compound the offence under section 307

I.P.C., which is admittedly a non-compoundable offence. Thus the Supreme

Court has given the benefit of compounding the offence under section 307

I.P.C. considering the special features of the case, wherein, the parties have

amicably settled their scores and living together. In the present case also, as

per the compromise memo dated 17.3.2017 and the statements made by the

parties, viz., the defacto complainant, victim and the petitioner/accused

before this Court that all of them are living together peacefully in the same

house after settling their misunderstandings and disputes among

themselves, in such circumstances, to secure the ends of justice, this Court

is of the view that no purpose would be served even if the case proceeds

further since the witnesses including the defacto complainant may not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7920 of 2017

support the prosecution during the investigation or during the trial in view

their compromise.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Original Petition is

allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.491 of 2017 pending on the file

of the respondent/complainant are hereby quashed.

01.11.2021

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order

sp/jd

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7920 of 2017

To

1. The Inspector of Police, K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station, Chennai – 106.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7920 of 2017

Krishnan Ramasamy,J., sp/jd

Crl.O.P.No.7920 of 2017

01.11.2021

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