Kathiravan vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 17280 Mad

                                                                          Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16813of 2022


                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 04.11.2022

                                                       CORAM

                         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

                                          CRL.O.P (MD) No.16813 of 2022

                     Kathiravan                                                        ...Petitioner

                                                       -vs-

                     1. The Inspector of Police
                        Samayanallur Police Station,
                        Madurai District.

                     2. P.Achudhan
                     3. Vijayalakshmi                                           ...Respondents


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
                     praying to call for the records of the impugned charge sheet in S.C. No.266
                     of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai
                     and quash the same as illegal as against the Petitioner.


                                          For Petitioner      : Mr.A.AbdulKabur
                                          For R-1              : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
                                                                 Additional Public Prosecutor
                                          For R2 and R3        : Mr.K.Sathiyendran


                     1/6



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16813of 2022


                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge

sheet in S.C. No.266 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge,

Mahila Court, Madurai.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the

Petitioner had entered into compromise with the defacto

complainant/second Respondent. Subsequent to the Registration of the First

Information Report and during the pendency of the case before the Court

concerned the Petitioner had entered into compromise and also filed joint

memo for compromise. On the strength of the joint memo for compromise

he seeks to quash the charge sheet in S.C.No.266 of 2022 on the file of the

learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 2 and 3 present

before this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16813of 2022

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor objected to quash the

charge sheet stating that the offence committed by the Petitioner is grave in

nature. Further Section 307 of IPC cannot be considered to be compounded

as per the provisions under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Further he also invited

the attention of this Court to the charge sheet regarding the charges as

against the Petitioner. Therefore he seeks to dismiss the petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner by way of rejoinder

submitted that the Petitioner and the defacto complainant are relatives. He

would also submit that no one sustained injuries in the said occurrence. The

Petitioner said to have uttered words threatening the defacto complainant

that he will kill her and thrown the knife but had not caused any injuries.

Therefore the provision of Section 307 of IPC would not be attracted/

6. On perusal of the judgment placed by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

in the facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the reported ruling

is not applicable in this case, as the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16813of 2022

at all attracted in this case. No grievous injury suffered by the defacto

Complainant in this case. The section of 307 of IPC is invoked only on the

accused throwing the knife at defacto complainant and uttering the word

that he will kill her. No injury caused on the defacto Complainant. Further

that case was not the case of sole accused. Here the complainant and the

accused belong to the same family. The defacto complainant is the sister-in-

law and the Petitioner is the brother-in-law. In the light of the above

amicable settlement between the family members, the joint compromise

memo filed by the Petitioner and the Respondents 2 and 3 is accepted and

facts of the case submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vide

ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is differentiated and hence this

Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in S.C. No.

266 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,

Madurai is hereby quashed.

04.11.2022

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16813of 2022

To

1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai

2. The Inspector of Police Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai District.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16813of 2022

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

aav

CRL.O.P (MD) No.16813 of 2022

04.11.2022

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