L.Baskaran v. The Inspector Of Police
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10903 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10903 of 2022
1. Baskaran
2. L.Haridass
3. L.Panjavarnam
...Petitioners/Accused Nos 1 to 3
Vs.
1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Devipattinam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.235 of 2019) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.B.Parimala ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crime No.235 of 2019 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. G. Kasinathadurrai For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For 2nd respondent : Mr. M. Gopidurai
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.235 of 2019, on the file of the first respondent police. 2.The complaint has been given by the wife against the husband and his father and mother with regard to the family dispute and a case has been registered in Crime No.235 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
3.The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 4.A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.L. Ananth, HC-1353, Devipattinam Police Station. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10903 of 2022 5.In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and the parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has to power to quash the complaint for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. 6.The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Panjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) reported in (2017)9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration. 7.In the light of the guidelines issued in the above said Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings in Crime No.235 of 2019 pending before the first respondent police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.235 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed insofar as the petitioners alone and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // /06/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) trp ENCL:Xerox Copy of Joint Compromise Memo To 1.The Inspector of Police, Devipattinam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.G. KASINATHADURAI, Advocate ( SR-26812[F] dated 20/06/2022 ) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10903 of 2022 20.06.2022 KG(CO) GC(27.06.2022) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2