Soosaiammal, W/O.Muniyandi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.06.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8245 of 2019 1.Soosaiammal 2.Muniyasamy : Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2

Versus

1.The State Rep. by its Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.323 of 2017).

:Respondent/Complainant 2.Pandilakshmi :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.203 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, in Crime No.323 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police and they pray that this Court be pleased to quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Baskaran For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent No.2 : Mr.B.Muneeswaran *******

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.203 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.203 of 2018 and charged with for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 2002. Now, to quash the said proceedings, the present petition has been filed.

3. 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 submitted that, the second respondent/defacto complainant and the petitioners are doing business in the same place and there was a wordy quarrel, which resulted in filing the present complaint. Now, they have settled the dispute between themselves and they are living together harmony. The second respondent/defacto complainant is also not willing to prosecute the criminal case any further.

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

4. Today, both the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant are present in Court and they were identified by their respective counsel. On enquiry, both parties have stated that they have settled the dispute between themselves amicably and they are living together harmony and the second respondent/defacto complainant has also stated that she is not willing to proceed with the criminal case any further and they have also filed a joint compromise memo to that effect.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that that the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant are neighbours and now, they have settled their dispute amicably and they are living together peacefully, this Court is of the view that there is no purpose in proceeding with the criminal case any further. In the above circumstances, 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.203 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, is quashed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai.

2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur.

3.The Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.A.BASKARAN, Advocate SR-69489.

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8245 of 2019 Dated: 14.06.2019 CS: (26/06/2019) 2P 6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/