Balakrishnan v. The State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.07.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL.O.P.No.11642 of 2021 Balakrishnan

...Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Rep.by Inspector of Police, N-1, Royapuram Police Station, Chennai District.

..1st respondent/Complainant Crime No.708 of 2021 2.Shanthi ...2nd respondent/ Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.708 of 2021, on the file of the Inspector of Police, N-1, Royapuram Police Station, Chennai District, quash the same. For Petitioner :

Mr.Swami Subramanian For R1 :

Mr.A.Damodaran, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 :

Mr.Vimalanadan

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.708 of 2021, pending on the file of the 1st respondent Police.

2.The gist of the case is that the defacto complainant is the wife of the petitioner and they had two children. Since her daughter fell sick the defacto complainant went to Tambaram and stayed with her daughter to take care of. At that time, the petitioner abusing the defacto complainant by connecting with

others. Finally, both were abusing each others and he took an aruval and attacked her. Further with the help of her son she was admitted in the hospital, hence the present complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is purely a family dispute between them. He further submits that due to pandemic and lock down, he turned him upside down and due to loss in business, this put him under massive frustration. He further submits that there was some altercation between the couples and the petitioner said to have faced many insults from the defacto complainant and family members 4.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that it is purely a family dispute between them and now she is no more interested in pursuing with the complaint against the petitioner.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent Police submitted that the dispute is between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent is husband and wife. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.708 of 2021, before the 1st respondent police. Now, the dispute has been resolved themselves.

6.The case is still in the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 7.Joint Compromise Memo dated 08.07.2021, filed before this Court which is signed by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and also by their respective counsel. In the Joint Memo of compromise, it is stated that the petitioner and the second respondent have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in Crime No.708 of 2021. All the parties were appeared before this Court through Video Conferencing and also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement.

8.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 v. 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 FIR in Crime No.708 of 2021, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, N-1 Royapuram Police Station, Chennai District.

9.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the FIR in Crime No.708 of 2021, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, N-1 Royapuram Police Station, Chennai District, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kp To

1. Inspector of Police, N-1, Royapuram Police Station, Chennai District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+2cc to Mr.Swami Subramanian, Advocate, S.R.No.32244 CRL.O.P.No.11642 of 2021 PCH(CO) RGA(04/08/2021)