K.Muppidathi v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.06.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9210 of 2016 K.Muppidathi ... Petitioner/Accused -vs1.State Rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Taluk Police Station, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.

Karupasamy ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the charge sheet filed by the 1st respondent in C.C.No.36 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil as against the petitioner For Petitioner :

Mr.Usillai O.Sivakumar For R1 :

Mr.K.V.Rajarajan Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 :

Mr.J.Sulthan Batcha

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. A case in Crime No.82 of 2015 has been registered under Sections 147, 294(b), 324 and 506(i) IPC by the 1st respondent against the petitioner. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate in C.C.No.36 of 2016.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner and the second respondent, 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 learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent police.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties filed a joint memo of compromise dated 01.06.2016, duly stating that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, under which the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the case in C.C.No.36 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.

4.1. From the compromise, this Court can safely infer that the chances of the defacto complainant deposing against the petitioner is less and therefore, the chance of conviction of the accused is bleak.

5. 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.

6. 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 Calendar Case (C.C.) will be in the ends of justice and accordingly, the same is ordered to be quashed.

7. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.36 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil in respect of the petitioner are hereby quashed.

Sd/ Assistant Registrar (W) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

1.

The Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.

2.

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Taluk Police Station, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

3.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9210 of 2016 23.06.2016 SMA/SK-SKN/24/08/2016 :2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/