Satham Hussain v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.11.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15715 of 2017 1.Satham Hussain 2.Muhamed Haniba @ Mohamed Hanifa 3.Fathima Beevi @ Fathima 4.Mohamed Abbas @ Abbas Ali ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 4 -Vs1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Keelakarai, Ramanathapuram District.

(in Crime No.01 of 2017) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Barveen @ Parveen Banu ...2nd Respondent / De-facto complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in FIR in Crime No.01 of 2017 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as far as the petitioners are concerned.

For Petitioners : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed For R1 : Mr.A.Ramar Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.J.Mohamed Ibrahim

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in FIR in Crime No.01 of 2017 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as far as the petitioners are concerned.

2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3.The petitioners are accused No.1 to 4 in the criminal case in Cr.No.01 of 2017. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case was registered in Crime No.01 of 2017, as against the petitioners and others, by the first respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376 and 506(i) IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.It appears that the the first petitioner and the second respondent have married each other. It is submitted that due to the matrimonial issue only, the case was registered and that therefore the parties have settled their dispute amicably out of Court. As a result, the first petitioner and the second respondent are living together as husband and wife and they have also entered into a compromise. A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 01.11.2017, signed by both parties, in the presence of their respective Counsel, is also produced before this Court. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the petitioners and the second respondent have mutually compromised and agreed for reunion and they have no objection for quashing the First Information Report in Cr.No.01 of 2017, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

5.Today, the parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed the Joint Compromise Memo on their own free 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 Additional Public Prosecutor through the first respondent police.

6.In view of the specific terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, this Court is of the view that no useful or fruitful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence the First Information Report in Cr.No.01 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent police, namely, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Keelakarai, Ramanathapuram District, is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. 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(CS-III) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To Encl:Xerox copy of Compromise Memo 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Keelakarai, Ramanathapuram District.

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

+1cc to Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed Advocate in SR. No. 87895 CMR JS/JC/SAR.2/4.12.2017/2P-4C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15715 of 2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17.11.2017