G.Honest Raja vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 10430 Mad

                                                                             CRL.O.P(MD) No.10066 of 2022


                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                      DATED: 17.06.2022

                                                          CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

                                              CRL.O.P(MD) No.10066 of 2022

                     G.Honest Raja                                   ... Petitioner/Accused

                                                             Vs.


                     1.The Inspector of Police,
                       All Women Police Station,
                       Samayanallur Police Station,
                       Madurai District.
                       (Cr.No.12 of 2020)                            ...1st Respondent/Complainant

                     2.M.Thottichi                          ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
                     praying to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in
                     Crime No.12 of 2020 pending on the file of the first respondent police and
                     quash the same as illegal.


                                     For Petitioner      : Mr.C.M.Arumugam
                                     For R1              : Mr.M.Sakthikumar
                                                           Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                     For R2              : Mr.V.Sundararaj


                     1/5


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                CRL.O.P(MD) No.10066 of 2022


                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in

Crime No.12 of 2020, on the file of the first respondent police.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/defacto

complainant fell in love with the petitioner and on the promise of marriage

given by the petitioner, she had physical relationship with the petitioner and

got pregnant. Thereafter, on 10.08.2020 the second respondent along with

her parents went to the petitioner's house and enquired about the marriage,

but the petitioner deserted the defacto complainant and her parents and also

threatened them. Hence, the second respondent /de-facto complainant gave

a complaint. Based on the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the

F.I.R. has been registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 417, 376,

506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of

Women Act.

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P(MD) No.10066 of 2022

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

Ms.J.Saranya, Grade I Police, All Women Police Station, Samayanallur.

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), 417, 376, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu

Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P(MD) No.10066 of 2022

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.12 of 2020 pending before the first respondent

police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a

sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.12 of 2020 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.

17.06.2022

Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no vsd

To

1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai District.

(Cr.No.12 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.10066 of 2022

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

vsd

ORDER IN CRL.O.P(MD) No.10066 of 2022

17.06.2022

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