M.M. Manoharan v. The Sub Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.03.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23614 of 2015 1.M.M.Manoharan 2.T.Ravindran 3.P.Mariappan 4.A.Rajendran ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 -vs1.
The State by Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Madurai ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.
V.Devan ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Crime No.78 of 2012 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Madurai and quash the same. For Petitioners :
Mr.K.Chengutuvan For R1 :
Mr.K.V.Rajarajan for R1 Government Advocate For R2 :
Mr.S.Sivakumar ******
O R D E R
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered in Crime No.78 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.
2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.78 of 2012 for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 468, 471, 420, 506(i) and 120 (B) IPC, has been registered against the petitioners.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners 1,2 and 3/Accused and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the Government Advocate (Crl. Side) through the respondent Police, namely, Palanisamy, Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also endorsed the identify of their respective parties.
4. The counsel appearing on either side filed a joint memo of compromise dated 23.11.2015, duly stating that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above case in Crime No.78 of 2012 pending on the file of the first respondent.
5. When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.406, 530 and 864 of 2016 (Prabu and others vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police and others), decided on 28.01.2016, this Court considered the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in several cases, namely, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish and others [(2015) 8 SCC 307] and observed as under:
"11. If the offences against women and children and the IPC offences falling under the categories, like, murder, attempt to murder, offence against unsound mind, rape, bribe, fabrication of documents, false evidence, robbery, dacoity, abduction, kidnapping, minor girl rape, idol theft, preventing a public servant from discharging of his/her duty, outrage of woman modesty, counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes, etc., are allowed to be compounded, it will surely have serious repercussion on the society, as the above mentioned list is only illustrative and not exhaustive.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences clubbed with Special Enactment, like Arms Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act, TNPPDL Act, TNPID Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity, etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. As held by the Apex Court, insofar the offences arising out of matrimonial dispute, relating to dowry or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature, are concerned, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, in case the parties resolve their entire disputes amicably among themselves.
This Court feels that there cannot be any compromise in respect of the heinous and serious offences of mental depravity and in that case, the Court should be very slow in accepting the compromise. If the compromise is entertained mechanically by the Court, the accused will have the upper hand. The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to be exploited by the accused, who can well afford to wait for a logical conclusion.
compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.
6. Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering the nature of allegations and in view of joint memo of compromise dated 23.11.2015 and though the 4th petitioner is not present, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matters pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings in Crime No.78 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent in respect of all the accused are hereby quashed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The joint compromise memos dated 23.11.2015 shall form part of this order.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O Dept) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To:
(*)JOINT MEMO OF COMPROMISE XEROX COPIES ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH 1.
The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Madurai 2.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+One cc to M/s.K.Chengutuvan, Advocate, SR.No.12860 RR RL/4C/3P/GSV/PM/1/4/2016 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23614 of 2015 07/03/2016