← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/12641/2015allowed

Enock v. The Inspector Of Police

2015-07-07Honourable Mr Justice M.M.Sundresh2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.07.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Crl.O.P. (MD) Nos.12641 & 11834 of 2015 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015

1. Enock

2. Jeyaraj

3. Ganachandra @ Chandramma

4. Nagomi

5. Prishkilla Zuvanita 6.Leediyal .. Petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12641 of 2015

1. C.S.Abraham

2. Ruth Abraham .. Petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11834 of 2015 Vs

1. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.7 of 2015)

2. Salinanitha ... Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps.

PRAYER:

These Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the first information report in Crime No.7 of 2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul, Dindigul District and quash the same as against the petitioners.

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Jeyakumar in (crl.OP 12641/15) Mr.S.Radhakrishnan in crl.OP.11831/15 For R1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) For R2 : Mr.R.Gowri Shankar COMMON ORDER These Criminal Original Petitions are filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.7 of 2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul, Dindigul District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1,2,3,4 to 8 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 498(A), 506(i) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.7 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent.

3. When these matters are taken up today for hearing, a Joint Compromise Memo dated 19.06.2015 has been filed by the petitioners and the second respondent duly signed by them as well as the counsel stating that the proceedings may be quashed. The petitioners and the second respondent/de-facto complainant are present before this Court and they have admitted the compromise entered into between them.

4. The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant submitted that the de-facto complainant has been agreed to mutual divorce and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- also received by her and hence, there is no necessity to proceed further.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the compromise memo, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.7 of 2015 pending on the file of the respondent police. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the case in Crime No.7 of 2015 pending on the file of the respondent police is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(crl.side) /TRUE COPY/ Assistant Registrar To

1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul Dindigul District.

(Copy of Compromie Memo)

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

(Copy of Compromise Memo) Akv sdr:3.8.15/2p-3c Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.12641 & 11834 of 2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 07.07.2015