Madras High Court
J.Subash vs State Represented By on 28 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11436 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11436 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.7232 and 7233 of 2022
J.Subash,
: Petitioner
Vs
1. State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thuckalay Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
Crime No.689 of 2015
2. M.Srija @ Seeja,
: Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records in pursuant to Charge Sheet in S.C.No.215
of 2017, on the file of the Sessions Judge/Fast Track Mahila
Court,Kanyakumari at Nagercoil in Crime No.689 of 2015 on the file of
the Inspector of Police,Thuckalay Police Station and quash the same.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11436 of 2022
For petitioner : M/s.Ramakrishna Dass N.S,
For R1 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.C.Sankar Prakash
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Charge
Sheet in S.C.No.215 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Sessions
Judge/Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, for the
offences punishable under Section 366 (A) of IPC, in Crime No.689 of
2015.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 08.08.2015, the petitioner
kidnapped the second respondent's daughter. Hence the complaint. After
investigation, the respondent police filed charge sheet in S.C.No.215 of
2017 pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge/Fast Track Mahila
Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
3.The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have
decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11436 of 2022
among themselves.
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 Mr.S.Mohandhas, SSI of Police, Thuckalay Police Station
as well as by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 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 Section 366 (A) of IPC.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11436 of 2022
(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 S.C.No.215 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned
Sessions Judge/Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil 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 S.C.No.215 of 2017 pending on the file of
the learned Sessions Judge/Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanyakumari at
Nagercoil, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall
form part and parcel of this order. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28.06.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
lr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11436 of 2022
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Thuckalay Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11436 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
lr
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11436 of 2022
28.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
