Sheik Mujammil v. The Inspecor Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.04.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6933 of 2016 SheikMujammil ... Petitioner/A12 -vs1.
State through the The Inspector of Police, Karuppayurani Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.187/2014) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.
Ranjithkumar ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in J.C.No.8 of 2016 pending on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, in the nature and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. For Petitioner :
Mr.D.A.Dhana Aravinda Balaji for M/s.Dhana Law Associates For R1 :
Mrs.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Crl. side) For R2 :
Mr.K.Kannan ******
O R D E R
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case in J.C.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.
2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.187 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b),323, 324 and 506 (ii) IPC r/w Section 3(1)(x) and (xiv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been registered against the petitioner.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner/Accused 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, R.Chandrasekaran, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Karuppayurani Police Station, Madurai 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 dated 20.04.2016, duly stating that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above case in J.C.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai 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.
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 20.04.2016, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matters pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings against all the accused in JC.C.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai District, are hereby quashed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The joint compromise memos dated 20.04.2016 shall form part of this order.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Encl : Join Memo of Compromise Xerox Copy Sub Assistant Registrar RR To:
1.
The Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai District 2.
The Inspector of Police,Karuppayurani Police Station, Madurai District.
3.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+2CC to Mr.Dhana Law Associates Sr.No.23499 GJM/GSV/MP/10.5.16-3p-6C Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6933 of 2016 25.04.2016