Uma Maheswari v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.07.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM 1.Uma Maheswari 2.Selvakani @ Selvi 3.Madavan @ Sivamadhavaraj ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 Vs 1.The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Uvari Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Narayana Perumal ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records pertaining to P.R.C.No.53 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram and quash the same. For Petitioners :Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.T.Leninkumar for R2 1/5

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.53 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 323, 379, 506(i) of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act in Crime No.36 of 2017.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent's son namely Rajadurai and the first petitioner got married. Due to some matrimonial dispute they are living separately and a divorce case is also pending. On 05.04.2017, at about 4.00 p.m. the petitioners trespassed into the 2nd respondent's house and abused him with filthy language, pushed him down, damaged his articles and also threatened him with dire consequences. 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.

2/5

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.V.Nambhiraja, Grade I Constable, Uvari Police Station. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

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 power to quash the complaint for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 323, 379, 506(i) of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act.

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. 3/5

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 P.R.C.No.53 of 2020 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, 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 P.R.C.No.53 of 2020 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. 04.07.2022 Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no vsd To 1.The Inspector of Police, Uvari Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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

4/5

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

vsd ORDER IN CRL.O.P(MD) No.10844 of 2022 04.07.2022 5/5