Arunkumaran v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.09.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11220 of 2017 1.Arunkumaran 2.Kalanchiyam 3.Jeyakandeepan 4.Prasanadevi 5.Balamurugan

...Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 5

-Vs1. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District, (In Crime No.14 of 2016) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Jeyarampriya ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.14 of 2016 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. For Petitioners :Mr.R.Mathiyalagan For R-1 :Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate(Crl.side).

For R-2 :Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan ***

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the records in Crime No.14 of 2016 on the file of the second respondent.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3.On the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent, against the petitioners, a case was registered in Crime No.14 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 506(ii) and 294(b) of I.P.C. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.14 of 2016. The first petitioner is the husband of the second respondent and other petitioners are the in laws of the second respondent and relatives of first petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.It appears that on the advise of elders and friends, the

petitioners and the second respondent have settled their dispute amicably out of Court and they have also entered into a compromise. A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 21.08.2017, signed by both parties, in the presence of their respective counsels is also filed.

As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent has given her consent to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.14 of 2016 in favour of the petitioners.

5.The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed in the Joint Compromise Memo on their own will and volition. The identity of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identity of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) through the first respondent police, except the fourth petitioner whose name though wrongly shown in the F.I.R as Prasnadevi, it is represented that her actual name is Prasanadevi. The fact was verified and confirmed by the second respondent. 6.Having regard to the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending.

As per the Compromise Memo signed by the parties, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent has agreed to quash the proceedings against all accused. Hence the criminal proceedings in Crime No.14 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police, All Women Police Station, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District, is quashed in toto. The Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Herewith enclosed the copy of Joint compromise Memo To 1 The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,Alangulam, Tirunelveli District.

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

+1CC to Mr.R.Mathiyalagan, Advocate, SR.No. 78385 +1CC to Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan, Advocate, SR.No. 78070 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11220 of 2017 cmr AM/JC/SAR 3/27.09.2017/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/