Raja v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.01.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1031 of 2016

1. Raja

2. Rajammal

3. Kannammal

4. Selvi

5. Banu ... Petitioners/A1 to A5 -vs1.

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sivagangai, Sivagangai Distrcit.

(Crime No.6/2014) ... 1st Respondent/ Complainant 2.

Kanisintha ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for records in C.C.No.198 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai and to quash the same as illegal and abuse of process of law.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ramesh Babu For R1 :

Mrs.S.Prabha Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 :

Mr.M.Maharaja

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.198 of 2015 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.

2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.6 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b) and 498A IPC, has been registered against the petitioners/A1 to A5. After completion of the investigation, the 1st respondent has filed a charge sheet, which was duly taken on file in C.C.No.198 of 2015 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai.

3. When this matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/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.

4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner filed this quash

petition along with a Joint Memo of Compromise dated 18.12.2015 , duly stating that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed for quashing of the case in C.C.No.198 of 2015 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai.

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. The antecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration before accepting the memo of 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 the joint memo of compromise dated 18.12.2015, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending.

Therefore, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.198 of 2015 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai in respect of the petitioners/A1 to A5 alone are hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The joint memo of compromise dated 18.12.2015 shall form part of this order. Sd/ Assistant Registrar (W) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Herein Attached Joint Compromise Memo filed dated 7.1.2016 ar To:

1.

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai.

2.

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sivagangai, Sivagangai Distrcit.

3.

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

+One CC to M/s.R.Venkata Subramanian, Advocate in Sr.No.5879 CN/MPA/18.2.2016/5C-3P Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1031 of 2016 28.01.2016