Senthil Kumar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.02.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1958 of 2016 1.Senthilkumar 2.Geethanjali 3.Vallithai
...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3
-vs1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Chokkampatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District, Cr.No.269 of 2015.
..Respondent/Complainant 2.Umadevi ..2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Cr.No.269 of 2015 on the file of the Chokkampatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District and to quash the same. For Petitioners :
Mr.K.Prabhu For Respondents :
M/s.S.Prabha, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R.1 :
Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R.2
O R D E R
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.269 of 2015 on the file of the Chokkampatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.
2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.269 of 2015 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) and 379 I.P.C. (NH) and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act has been registered 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 Government Advocate (Crl.side) through the respondent Police, namely, Mr.Muthiah, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Chokkampatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also endorsed the identify of their respective parties.
4. The counsel appearing on either side filed a joint memo of compromise, 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 above case in Cr.No.269 of 2015 on the file of the Chokkampatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
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 joint memo of compromise, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matters pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings in Cr.No.269 of 2015 on the file of the Chokkampatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District, in respect of the petitioners/accused alone, are hereby quashed.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The joint compromise memo shall form part of this order.
8. At this juncture, Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that the respondent police are in possession of three documents viz., (1) ECHS Card (2) Canteen Card and
(3) Canteen Smart Card.
9. Mr.Muthiah, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Chokkampatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District who is present before this Court fairly submitted that those documents are kept in the safe custody of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police, Chokkampatti Police Station.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners have no objection for the police handing over the documents to the defacto complainant.
11. In view of the above, this Court directs the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police, Chokkampatti police station to hand over the documents viz.,(1) ECHS Card (2) Canteen Card and (3) Canteen Smart Card to Mrs.Uma Devi under proper acknowledgment within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(W ) (*) Joint Compromise memo vide separate sheet /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To:
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chokkampatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Chokkampatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District,
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1cc to Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Advocate SR.No.8482 +1cc to Mr.K.Prabhu, Advocate Sr.No.8364 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1958 of 2016 11.02.2016 ssl PBK/SK-SKN 22/02/2016 ::3P-6C::