M.Prasannakumar, v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.06.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6608 of 2019 1.M.Prasannakumar 2.I.Meiyappan [Wrongly mentioned in the charge sheet as Meiyathevan] 3.Rajamani 4.Thenmozhi 5.M.Samantha 6.P.Ravanan :Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 6

Versus

State Rep. by 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thilagar Thidal, Madurai City, Cr.No.4 of 2017.

:Respondent/Complainant 2.Rajeswari : Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records in C.C.No.182 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai District and consequently, accept the compromise arrived at between both the accused's and the defacto complainant to compound the case and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent No.2 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh *******

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.182 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai District.

2. The complaint has been given by the second respondent/defacto complainant against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are the husband and in-laws of the second respondent/defacto complainant.

3. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the

learned counsel appearing for the second respondent jointly submitted that there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties and they have settled the dispute between themselves amicably and to that effect, they have also filed a joint compromise memo stating that the first petitioner/husband has given a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- [Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only] and 10 sovereigns of gold jewels worth about Rs.2,50,000/- [Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only] to the second respondent/defacto complainant. Now, the second respondent wants to withdraw the complaint and also to compound the offence.

4. Today, both the second respondent/defacto complainant and the petitioners/accused are present. On enquiry, the second respondent/defacto complainant submitted that since the dispute has been settled between the parties, she is not interested in prosecuting the case any further.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute between themselves and taking into account the joint compromise memo, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.182 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, is quashed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) To 1.The Additional Mahila Court, Madurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thilagar Thidal,Madurai City, 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.N.MOHIDEEN BASHA, Advocate SR-67231 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6608 of 2019 Dated: 03.06.2019 CS: (14/06/2019) 3P 5C