Madras High Court
Murugan vs The Inspector Of Police on 16 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10239 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10239 of 2022
and Crl.M.P(MD)No.6410 of 2022
1. Murugan
2. Pandiammal
3. Nanthini
4. Rahini ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
Vadipatty Police Station,
Madurai District.
Crime No.1779 of 2020.
2. Illakya ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.1779 of 2020, on the file of the first
respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr. S.Ramasundaravijayaraj
For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James (R1)
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Mr.D.Muthukumar (R2)
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10239 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.1779 of 2020, on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's brother
got married to one Nandini, who is A3 in this case. Due to matrimonial
dispute, on 03.09.2020 around 06.00PM all the accused persons went to the
house of the defacto complainant and scolded them with filthy words and
also assaulted them. Subsequent to that, the defacto complainant consumed
poison and admitted in the hospital. Hence, the complaint.
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 petitioners and the second respondent and
also by their respective counsel. The petitioners 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.10239 of 2022
Mr.P.Servai, SSI of Police, Vadipatti Police Station. 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 offence under
Sections 294(b), 323, 355, 309 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
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.1779 of 2020 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.10239 of 2022
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a
sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.1779 of 2020 on the file of the first
respondent police, is quashed insofar as the petitioners alone and the terms
of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.06.2022
Internet:Yes./No
Index:Yes/no
PNM
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Vadipatti Police Station,
Madurai District.
Crime.No. 1779 of 2020.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10239 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10239 of 2022
and Crl.M.P(MD)No.6410 of 2022
16.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
