Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/1895/2020allowed

Ganesan v. The Inspector Of Police

2022-03-04Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar2 pages

CRL.O.P.[MD].No.1895 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR CRL.O.P.[MD].No.1895 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.[MD]Nos.955 and 957 of 2020 1.Ganesan 2.Alagarsamy 3.Pitchammal 4.Thangam @ Thangesswari 5.Ramasamy ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 5 Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.

... 1st Respondent / Complainant 2.Vallimayal ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.186 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri in Crime No.20 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned. For Petitioners : Mr.B.Arun For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate.

For R2 : Mr.K.Prakash

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the final report filed in C.C.No.186 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri in Crime No.20 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police.

2. The first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant, the second and third petitioner are the in-laws.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint came to be filed due to the matrimonial dispute, which is ended with compromise. He further submitted that the defacto complainant has got remarried and hence, she is reluctant to come to this Court, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the second respondent.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

CRL.O.P.[MD].No.1895 of 2020

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the defacto complainant has no objection for quashing the proceedings as against the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that as the dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant has ended with a compromise and the defacto complainant has re-married and has no objection for quashing the proceedings, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the final report filed against the petitioners in C.C.No.186 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri, is quashed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) VSM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.B.ARUN, Advocate ( SR-10254[F] dated 07/03/2022 ) CRL.O.P.[MD].No.1895 of 2020 04.03.2022 RK(24/03/2022) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2