Madras High Court
Kaliraj vs The Inspector Of Police on 10 August, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14350 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P (MD) No.14350 of 2022
1. Kaliraj
2. Kaliyappan
3. Veerakkal
4. Sundari ... Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 4
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
Thirumangalam AWPS Police Station,
Madurai District.
In Crime No.28 of 2018. .... 1st Respondent /Complainant
2. Thenmozhi ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records in C.C.No.56 of 2021 in Crime No.28 of
2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam as
against the petitioners and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sivaprakash
For R1 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.B.Viswanathan
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14350 of 2022
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Charge
Sheet in C.C.No.56 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court,
Thirumangalam, in Crime No.28 of 2018, for the offences punishable under
Sections 498 (A), 406 and 506(1) I.P.C., on the file of the first respondent
Police.
2.The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided
to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among
themselves.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defacto
complainant and the accused persons are relatives. They settled the matter
out of the Court and they have been filed a Joint Memo of Compromise
before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the second
respondent. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in
person before this Court and they were identified by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor and Mrs.S.Sankari, WHC – 2178, Thirumangalam All
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14350 of 2022
Women Police Station, Madurai District. This Court also enquired both the
parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable
settlement between themselves.
4. 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 498 (A), 406, and 506(1) I.P.C.
5. 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.
6. 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 C.C.No.56 of 2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Thirumangalam, even though, the offences involved are not
compoundable in nature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14350 of 2022
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as
a sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.56 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Thirumangalam, is quashed and the terms of joint
compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
10.08.2022
Internet:Yes./No
Index:Yes/no
ebsi
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Thirumangalam.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Thirumangalam AWPS Police Station,
Madurai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14350 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
ebsi
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.14350 of 2022
10.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
