Madras High Court
K.Pandiyarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 18 May, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9159 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.05.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9159 of 2023
K.Pandiyarajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.25 of 2022)
2.Angalaeswari ....Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records relating to the case in FIR in Crime No.25
of 2022 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.SP.Vijay Nivas
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sivakumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R.1
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9159 of 2023
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.25 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused/petitioner
married the second respondent/defacto complainant, before attaining
majority and he had sexual intercourse with her, for which a case has
been registered in Crime No.25 of 2022.
3. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their
hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. Now,
the second respondent is not interested in proceeding the case further.
The second respondent and the accused, the petitioner herein appeared
before this Court.
4. The second respondent states that she has now attained majority
and married the petitioner and she is now living with the petitioner only.
The petitioner is also close relative of the second respondent. With
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9159 of 2023
consent of their family members, they are living together. This fact is
also admitted by the petitioner. To prove the age of the second
respondent, a copy of the birth certificate has been produced, which
shows that she was born on 08.03.2005 and now, she became major.
5. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that
the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. A
Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court, which has
been signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and also by their
respective counsel.
6. In the instant case, the dispute between the parties has been
compromised out of the Court. When the parties have compromised the
matter, the High Court has to power to quash the complaint for the
offences.
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)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9159 of 2023
10 SCC 303 and also in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai
Vs. State of Gujrath) reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 was taken into
consideration.
8. In the light of the guidelines issued in the aforesaid Judgments
of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served in keeping
the FIR in Crime No.25 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police,
even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
as a sequel, the FIR in Crime No.25 of 2022 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.
18.05.2023
NCC:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
Sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9159 of 2023
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9159 of 2023
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
Sm
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9159 of 2023
18.05.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
