Madras High Court
Dhinu Rakesh vs State Represented By on 12 January, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22582 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22582 of 2022
1.Dhinu Rakesh
2.Muthu Surendran
3.Shanthi Arul Kala ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Nagercoil,
kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.65 of 2020)
2.Sunitha ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the FIR in
Crime No.65 of 2020 dated 19.12.2020 on the file of the first respondent
police for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323, 379
and 506(2) IPC, Sections 3(1), 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act,
2002.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22582 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Subbiah
For R1 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.H.Vimal Prasad
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section
482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the First
Information Report in Crime No.65 of 2020 on the file of the first
respondent police and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first
petitioner and second respondent/defacto complainant was solemnized
on 11.12.2019, that there existed matrimonial dispute between them and
that the petitioners harassed the second respondent by demanding dowry.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first
respondent and on that basis, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.65
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22582 of 2022
of 2020 dated 19.12.2020 for the offences under Sections 498(A),
294(b), 323, 379 and 506(2) IPC, Sections 3(1), 4 and 6 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, 2002 against four persons including the
petitioners. He would further submit that the fourth accused Chella
Vasana had died on 14.11.2021.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further
submit that at the time of marriage, the second respondent's father gave a
sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the petitioners and that the petitioners had
returned a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and gold jewels to the second
respondent.
5. As per the compromise agreement, the balance amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) has been paid by way of
Demand Draft to the second respondent before this Court.
6. The case is still under the 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.22582 of 2022
7. 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 M/s.K.Santhi, Women Special Sub Inspector, All Women
Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District 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.
8. In the instant case, it is a matrimonial dispute and now the
parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the
matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offences
under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323, 379 and 506(2) IPC, Sections 3(1),
4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
9. 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.22582 of 2022
(2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of
Gujrath) reported in (2017)9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.
10. 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.65 of 2020 pending before the
first respondent police, even though, the offences involved are not
compoundable in nature.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed
and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.65 of 2020 on the file of
the first respondent police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise
memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
12.01.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
csm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22582 of 2022
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Nagercoil,
kanyakumari District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22582 of 2022
Dated: 12.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
