Madras High Court
Baskaran vs State Rep. By on 20 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10903 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10903 of 2022
1. Baskaran
2. L.Haridass
3. L.Panjavarnam ...Petitioners
Vs.
1.State rep. by
the Inspector of Police,
Devipattinam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
Crime No.235 of 2019
2.B.Parimala ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call
for the records in Crime No.235 of 2019 on the file of the 1 st respondent
police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. G. Kasinathadurrai
For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For 2nd respondent : Mr. M. Gopidurai
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10903 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.235 of 2019, on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The complaint has been given by the wife against the husband and his
father and mother with regard to the family dispute and a case has been
registered in Crime No.235 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police for
the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
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.L. Ananth,
HC-1353, Devipattinam Police Station. This Court also enquired both the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10903 of 2022
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 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.235 of 2019 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.10903 of 2022
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a
sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.235 of 2019 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.
20.06.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
trp
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Devipattinam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram 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.10903 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
trp
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10903 of 2022
20.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
