Ramji @ Ramaselvam v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.04.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR CRL.O.P.(MD)No.6209 of 2018 1.Ramji @ Ramaselvam 2.Manojkumar 3.Venkatesh @ Vignesh 4.Vignesh @ Pradeep Solai 5.Yaswanth @ yaswanth Prabakaran 6.Aswin @ Aswin Pandi 7.Abinesh 8.Prethiviraj 9.Santhi 10.Mallika @ Radha ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 10 -Vs1. State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Chinnamanur Police Station, Theni District.
(Crime No.547 of 2017) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Chitra ...2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crime No.547 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Madhavan For R1 : Mr.Prabhu Ramachandran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth
O R D E R
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.547 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent police.
2. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, the first respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.547 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC., r/w 4 of Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, r/w 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, against the petitioners herein. Now, for quashing the said Crime No.547 of 2017, the petitioners and the defacto complainant are before this Court on the ground that they have arrived at a compromise.
3. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.S.Kumaresan, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Chinnamanur Police Station, Theni District, is present. The defacto complainant and the petitioners are present and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) through Mr.S.Kumaresan, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Chinnamanur Police Station, Theni District.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners filed this quash petition along with a joint memo of compromise dated 09.04.2018. The said joint memo of compromise is extracted hereunder:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying grounds of original quash petition, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to accept this Compromise Memo and call for the records in Crime No.547 of 2017, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same."
5. 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 09.04.2018, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Therefore, the proceedings in Crime No.547 of 2017 pending on the file of the first respondent police and the final report in respect of the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 10 is hereby quashed.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The joint compromise memo dated 09.04.2018 shall form part of this order.
8. At the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners themselves voluntarily came forward to contribute some amount to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench.
9. Accepting the submission, the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- each, (totally Rs.10,000/-), to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench, under
the head of Infrastructure funds, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After making payment, a copy of the challan shall be furnished to the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To
1. The Inspector of Police, Chinnamanur Police Station, Theni District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Copy TO:
1. The Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
2. The Officer Incharge, Mediation and Conciliation Center, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 cc to M/S.S.MADHAVAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No.62223 CRL.O.P.(MD) No.6209 of 2018 Dated: 18.04.2018 PJL PK/CM-PN/SAR-1/15.05.2018 : 4P/6C