Madras High Court
K.R.Praveen vs The State Represented By on 10 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10340 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10340 of 2022
1. K.R.Praveen
2. Ramanathan ... Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2
Vs
1. The State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tallakulam,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.15 of 2021) .... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Mirunalinie ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No.15 of
2021 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Muthumalai
For R1 : Mr.E.Anotny Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.V.Karuppiah
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10340 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.15 of 2021, on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 04.04.2016, the first
petitioner got married with the second respondent/defacto complainant.
Later, due to the misunderstanding between the couples, they are living
separately from the year 2019. Hence, the second respondent has lodged a
complaint against the first petitioner. For which, the first respondent
registered the FIR in Crime No.15 of 2021 against the first petitioner for the
alleged offences under Sections 498 (A) and 406 IPC, which is pending
before the first respondent police. Hence, the complaint.
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.10340 of 2022
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 the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mrs.K.Valarmathi, SSI of Police,
All women Police Station, Tallakulam, Madurai District. 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 498 (A) and 406 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 (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.10340 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.15 of 2021 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.15 of 2021 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.
10.06.2022
Internet:Yes./No
Index:Yes/no
ebsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10340 of 2022
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tallakulam, 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.10340 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
ebsi
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10340 of 2022
10.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
