Ganesan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.08.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15686 of 2016
1. Ganesan
2. Karuppaiah
3. Subbulakshmi
4. Angayarkanni
5. Bhuvaneswari
6. Marimuthu
7. Mariyammal ... Petitioners/A1 to A3 and 5 -vs1.The State through The Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Sundhara Meenachi ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records connected with the case in Crime No.16 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners. For Petitioners :
Mr.R.Alagumani For R1 :
Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 :
Mr.Sundararajan
O R D E R
Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
2.It is seen that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant are husband and wife; the marriage between them had
taken place on 23.02.2015; the first petitioner allegedly married the sixth petitioner and harassed the de facto complainant; the other petitioners are in-laws of the de facto complainant; the first petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Virudhunagar; the de facto complainant/wife lodged a complaint before the first respondent police and based on that complaint, a case in Crime No.16 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 498 (A), 494, 294(b), 448, 506(i) and 109 IPC by the first respondent against the petitioners.
3.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners 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 learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) through the respondent police. 4.This is a family dispute, in which the de facto complainant/wife, who is comprehensive that the husband married second time. The de facto complainant instituted a case against all the petitioners. The de facto complainant, who is present before this Court, would submit that there had been a petition for divorce by mutual consent, pending before the Sub Court, Virudhunagar. She would further submit that she has no further grievance against any one of the petitioners. All the petitioners would have confirmed the same including the husband of the de facto complainant.
5.0.Learned counsel appearing for the parties filed a joint memo of compromise dated 14.08.2016, duly stating that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, under which the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above case in Crime No.2 of 2016 pending on the file of the first respondent. 5.1. From the compromise, this Court can safely infer that the chances of the defacto complainant deposing against the petitioners is less and therefore, the chance of conviction of the accused is bleak.
6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 held that the High Court can quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so requires, i.e. there would be almost no chance of conviction. Thus, B.S.Joshi's case provided a creative solution for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7.Therefore, considering, a) the nature of relationship between the parties, b) nature of offences alleged c) the settlement arrived at and d) the ultimate result of the prosecution, this Court is of the view that quashing of the First
Information Report will be in the ends of justice and accordingly, the same is ordered to be quashed.
8.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.16 of 2016 dated 11.06.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police in respect of the petitioners are hereby quashed.
sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar smn To 1.The Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.
+2CC to Mr.R.Alagumani, Advocate Sr.No.47943, 48338 GJM/SKS/RR/15.9.16-3p-5c ORDER MADE IN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15686 of 2016 26.08.2016