Ragulraj v. Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.02.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH 1.Ragulraj 2.Ragulgandhi ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The State Represented by The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station - Neyveli, Cuddalore District.

(Crime No.3 of 2019) 2.Manimozhi ... Respondents Prayer:

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in S.C.No.39 of 2021 pending before the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore and quash the same as illegal since the matter has been settled amicably outside the Court between the petitioners and respondent no.2. For Petitioners : M/s.V.Manikandan For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran for R1 Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.P.Vetrivel for R2 1/4

O R D E R

The criminal original petition has been filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in S.C.No.39 of 2021, pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore and quash the same.

2.The case is still at the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

3.The second respondent/ defacto complainant was present before this Court and she stated that she married the first petitioner on 25.11.2021 and through the marriage there is a child aged about four years named Hanish. She stated that she is now living happily with the first petitioner and requested this Court to close the case. 4.The Joint Compromise Memo dated 14.02.2024 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 2/4

before this Court and they were identified by Ms.S.Thairiyalakshmi, Women Head Constable, AWPS/ Neyveli, Cuddalore. In the joint compromise memo it has been stated that the petitioners and the second respondent had entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in S.C.No.39 of 2021. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

5.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the case in S.C.No.39 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore. 6.This criminal original petition stands allowed and as a sequel, 3/4

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

pri the proceedings in S.C.No.39 of 2021 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, is quashed and the terms of Joint Compromise Memo shall form part and parcel of this order. 22.02.2024 pri Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No To 1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore.

2.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station - Neyveli, Cuddalore District.

(Crime No.3 of 2019) 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

22.02.2024 4/4