Pandiselvam v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.04.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD) No.414 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.208 of 2016 Pandiselvam ... Petitioners / Accused vs.

1.

The State through Inspector of Police Melur Police Station Melur District in Crime No.991 of 2015 ... 1st Respondent / Complainant 2.

Kattuva ... 2nd Respondent / De facto complainant PRAYER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the F.I.R., in Crime No.992 of 2015, dated 01.12.2015, on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same.

For Petitioners :

Mr.T.Muruganandham For Respondents :

Mrs.S.Prabha, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.S.J.Chakkaravarthy for R2

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered in Crime No.992 of 2015, on the file of the first respondent Police, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.

2. It is seen that a case, in Crime No.992 of 2015, for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C., has been registered against the petitioner / accused.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner / accused and the second respondent / de facto complainant, appeared in person and their identifications were also verified by this

Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the Government Advocate (Criminal Side) through the first respondent Police, namely, P.Duraipandi, Inspector of Police. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also endorsed the identify of their respective parties.

4. The second respondent filed an affidavit, dated 06.01.2016, stating that the dispute between him and the petitioner has been settled and he has agreed to withdraw the above case in Crime No.991 of 2015, pending on the file of the first respondent Police.

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.

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 second respondent's affidavit, dated 06.01.2016, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings in Crime No.992 of 2015, on the file of the first respondent Police, in respect of the accused, are hereby quashed.

7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The affidavit, dated 06.01.2016, filed by the second respondent, shall form part of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar Encl :

Affidavit of the 2nd Respondent - Xerox Copy To 1.

The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Melur District.

2.

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

Krk JM/GSV-PM/21.04.2016/3P-3C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.414 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.208 of 2016 04.04.2016