Madras High Court
Karthick Babu vs State Represented By Its on 22 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11043 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11043 of 2022
1. Karthick Babu
2. Durga Devi
3. Sakthi Devi
4. Lakshmi
5. Rajeswari
6. Rukkumani ... Petitioner/
Accused 1to6
Vs
1. State represented by its
The Inspector of Police,
Thirunagar Police Station,
Madurai City.
(Crime No.381 of 2019) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2. Saravanan ...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 proceedings in C.C.No.731
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11043 of 2022
of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate / Additional Mahila
Court, Madurai and quash the same as against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian,
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Mr.B.Viswanathan for R2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Charge
Sheet in C.C.No.731 of 2020 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate /
Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 448, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of TN
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.381 of 2019.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the
defacto complainant's daughter are husband and wife. Due to family dispute,
the petitioners had quarrelled with the defacto complainant, which resulted
in scuffle between the parties. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a
complaint and for the same, an FIR had been registered in Crime No.381 of
2019, for the offences under Sections 147, 448, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(1)
IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11043 of 2022
3.The case is under trial. 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.R.Mariappan, SSI of Police, Thirunagar Police Station. This Court also
enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an
amicable settlement between themselves.
5.The defacto complainant is the father-in-law of the first accused.
Out of family dispute, a wordy quarrel arose between them and they want to
settle the matter out of Court. Since the dispute is being a family dispute, the
defacto complainant is not willing to continue the criminal proceedings
against his son-in-law. Under these circumstances, continuing the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners would be of no use.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11043 of 2022
6.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 147, 448, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of TN
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
7.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.
8.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.731 of 2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate /
Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, even though, the offences involved are
not compoundable in nature.
9.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a
sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.731 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11043 of 2022
Magistrate / Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, is quashed insofar as the
petitioners alone and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part
and parcel of this order.
22.06.2022
Internet:Yes./No
Index:Yes/no
csm
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Thirunagar Police Station,
Madurai City.
2. The Judicial Magistrate / Additional Mahila Court,
Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11043 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
csm
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11043 of 2022
22.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
