Madras High Court
Siva vs The State Rep. By on 1 August, 2022
CRL.O.P (MD) No.13792 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P (MD) No.13792 of 2022
Siva ... Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
K.Pudur Police Station,
Madurai City.
(Crime No.1086 of 2021) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.xxxxxx
Madurai. ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records in connection with the impugned F.I.R. in
Crime No.1086 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police and quash the
same insofar as this petitioner is concerned.
For petitioner : Mr.S.Premkumar
For R1 : M.Sakthikumar
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R2 : Mr.J.Krishnakumar
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.13792 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in
Crime No.1086 of 2021, on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had love affair
with the de facto complainant. When the de facto complainant's family
came to know about the love affair, they vehemently opposed it. While so,
on 02.09.2021, both of them eloped to Batlangundu. Based on the complaint
given by the de facto complaint's mother, a case has been registered against
the petitioner.
3.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.
4.A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court
which have been signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and
also by their respective counsel. The petitioner and the second respondent
were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.13792 of 2022
Ms.N.Ranjitham, SSI of Police, All Women Police Station (North), Madurai
District 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.
5.In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and the
parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the matter,
the High Court has to power to quash the complaint for the offences
punishable under Sections 5(i), 5(i)(ii), 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
6.The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the 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.
7.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 Crime No.1086 of 2021 pending before the first respondent
police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.13792 of 2022
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a
sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.1086 of 2021 on the file of the first
respondent police, is quashed insofar as the petitioner alone and the terms of
joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
01.08.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/no
vsd
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
K.Pudur Police Station,
Madurai City.
(Crime No.1086 of 2021)
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.13792 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
vsd
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.13792 of 2022
01.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
