Rasu vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 13905 Mad

                                                                      Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13722 of 2022

                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 04.08.2022

                                                      CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

                                           Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13722 of 2022

                     1. Rasu
                     2. Selvi
                     3. Sreemathi                                               ... Petitioners

                                                           Vs.

                     1. The Inspector of Police
                        South All Women Police Station
                        Madurai District

                     2.Vasuki                                                ....Respondents

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
                     praying to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in
                     CC No.86 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
                     Additional Mahila Court, Madurai and quash the same.


                                     For Petitioners : Mr.B.VinothKumar
                                     For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James
                                     No.1              Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
                                     No.2            : Mr.A.Mohamed Yusur




                     1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                            Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13722 of 2022




                                                            ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Charge

Sheet in CC No.86 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai

2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first

accused and the defacto complainant in the year 2013 as per hindu rites

and customs. After three years of marriage, the first accused tortured the

second respondent demanding more dowry and also took her 21

sovereigns gold jewels and went to Singapore. After that all the

petitioner herein tortured the defacto complainant and threw her from

the matrimonial home. Hence she gave complaint before the second first

respondent. The first respondent after completion of investigation, filed

final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila

Court, Madurai and the same has been taken cognizance in CC No.86 of

2015.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13722 of 2022

3.The case is under trial. 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 petitioners and the second respondent and

also by their respective counsel. Further A1 and A5 not present before

this Court and the defacto complainant is also not willing to continue the

criminal proceedings as against them also. The petitioners and the second

respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were

identified by Mrs. S.Sharmili, WSSI, AWPS, South 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13722 of 2022

5. In the instant case, the dispute is between the husband and wife

and his families the parties had compromised. Where the parties have

compromised the matter, the High Court has to power to quash the

complaint for the offence under Sections 498(A), 506(i) and 406 of IPC.

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 CC No.86 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai , even though, the

offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13722 of 2022

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and

as a sequel, the entire proceedings in CC No.86 of 2015 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai is quashed and

the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this

order.

04.08.2022

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai

2. The Inspector of Police South All Women Police Station Madurai City

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13722 of 2022

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

aav

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13722 of 2022

04.08.2022

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