J.Mary Grace vs State Through
2022 Latest Caselaw 10433 Mad

                                                                            CRL.O.P(MD) No.8504 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.8504 of 2022
                                                          and
                                               Crl.M.P(MD)No.5768 of 2022

                     1.J.Mary Grace
                     2.R.S.Kannan                            ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2

                                                           Vs.

                     1.State through
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       Thirumangalam Town Police Station,
                       Madurai District.
                       (Cr.No.29 of 2022)            ...1st Respondent/Complainant

                     2.Latha                              ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
                     praying to call for the records and quash the proceeding of the FIR in Crime
                     No.29 of 2022 dated 25.01.2022 on the file of the first respondent.


                                     For Petitioners   : Mr.K.Prabhu
                                     For R1            : Mr.M.Sakthikumar
                                                         Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
                                     For R2            : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran


                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   CRL.O.P(MD) No.8504 of 2022




                                                             ORDER

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

Crime No.29 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the first petitioner

and the 2nd petitioner were running a Cable TV Network Company in the

name and style of 'Nila Network' with 1380 connections. Since the said

company was facing severe loss, they proposed to sell it to the defacto

complainant for a sum of Rs.27,00,000/-. The defacto complainant was not

having that much of amount, she gave a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- to the

husband of the first petitioner and became a partner of the said Nila

Network and also entered into an agreement into writing in the unregistered

stamp paper Rs.20/-. From the year 2017, the husband of the first petitioner

did not show any accounts to the defacto complainant. Further, the defacto

complainant came to know that the husband of the first petitioner has

obtained loan from the Bank in the name of the Cable TV Network without

consent of the defacto complainant. Hence, she gave a complaint against

the first petitioner. Based on the complaint given by the de-facto

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P(MD) No.8504 of 2022

complainant, the F.I.R. has been registered for the offences under Sections

403, 406 and 420 of IPC.

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

Mr.B.Saravanan, Head Constable, Thirumangalam Town Police Station,

Madurai. 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 civil 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 403, 406 and 420 of IPC.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P(MD) No.8504 of 2022

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.29 of 2022 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.29 of 2022 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.

17.06.2022

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P(MD) No.8504 of 2022

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P(MD) No.8504 of 2022

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

vsd

ORDER IN CRL.O.P(MD) No.8504 of 2022 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.5768 of 2022

17.06.2022

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