Mr. Gopal Raman v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.06.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR CRL.O.P.(MD)No.9196 of 2018 Gopal Raman .. Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station, Tuticorin District.

Crime No.36 of 2018. ..Respondent/Complainant 2.Lakshmanan .. Respondent/De facto Complainant Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.36 of 2018 on the file of the respondent No.1 dated 16.03.2018 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For R1 : Mr.Prabhu Ramachandran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.M.Arunvarman

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR, registered against the petitioner in Crime No.36 of 2018 by the first respondent on 16.03.2018.

2.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, the first respondent police has registered a case in Cr.No.36 of 2018 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC against the petitioner/sole accused and in order to quash the same, the petitioner is before this Court by filing the present petition.

3.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.T.M.Ajmal Jenif, the Sub Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station, Tuticorin District is present. The defacto complainant and the petitioner 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.T.M.Ajmal Jenif the Sub Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station, Tuticorin District. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed this quash petition along with a joint memo of compromise dated 07.05.2018, wherein, it is stated as follows:

"3.Now both the defacto complainant and the petitioner of the instant quash petition have settled the issue outside the Court amicably in the presence of elderly persons and solved the dispute and there is no problem between the petitioner and the defacto complainant.

4.The petitioner has settled the dispute amicably with the defacto complainant in the presence of elderly persons out of the court and now there is no problem between the petitioner and defacto complainant. Hence the FIR may be quashed on the ground that the matter has been settled.

5.Now both the parties decided to withdraw all the allegations made against each other and have settled the dispute amicably in the presence of elderly persons. Hence, the FIR may be quashed on the ground that the matter has been settled.

Therefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record this joint compromise memo as part and parcel of the quash petition and quash the FIR in Crime No.36 of 2018 on the file of the respondent No.1 dated 16.03.2018.

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.

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 dated 07.05.2018, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings in FIR No.36 of 2018 pending on the file of the first respondent in respect of the petitioner/sole accused 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 dated 07.05.2018 shall form part of this order.

8.At the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner himself voluntarily came forward to contribute some amount to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench.

9.Accepting the submission, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) 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 (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

Encl:- Xerox Copy of Compromise Memo To 1.The Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station, Tuticorin District.

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

Copy to 1.The Registrar(Admn), Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.

2.Office Incharge, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1CC to Mr.T.Lajapathiroy Advocate in SR.No.68298. MJ DS/SKN-RSK/SAR-2 :18.06.2018:4P/6C CRL.O.P.(MD) No.9196 of 2018 13.06.2018