Chandrasekar v. Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.10.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

1. Chandrasekar

2. Veerajeenammal ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police, W-18, All Women Police Station, Vyasarpadi, Chennai-39.

2. Revathy ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.8186 of 2007 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.SP. Vijay Nivas For R1 :

Mr.S.Santhosh Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.8186 of 2007 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are none other than the husband and mother in law of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. He would further submit that the petitioners and the defacto complainant have now entered into a compromise and the issues between them are amicably settled and to that effect, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant has filed an affidavit in this Criminal Original Petition giving her consent not to proceed with the case in C.C.No.8186 of 2007 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai and to quash the same. The same is hereby recorded.

3.The case is pending in C.C.No.8186 of 2007 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

4. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by the concerned

Inspector of Police, W-18, All Women Police Station, Vyasarpadi, Chennai39. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

5. In the instant case, the dispute is of matrimonial in nature and the parties have compromised with each other. Whereas the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

6. 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)10 SCC 303 and Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) reported in (2017)9 SCC 641 was taken into consideration.

7. 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 criminal proceedings pending in C.C.No.8186 of 2007 pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai even

V. SIVAGNANAM, J.

msr though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the C.C.No.8186 of 2007 pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai is quashed and the terms of Joint Compromise Memo shall form part and parcel of this order. 14.10.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No msr To 1.The Inspector of Police, W-18, All Women Police Station, Vyasarpadi, Chennai-39.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.