Minor Ajithkumar @ Veeralakshmanan v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 25.08.2023 Delivered on 11.09.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN 1.Minor Ajithkumar @ Veeralakshmanan 2.Minor Vallarasu 3.Lakshmi 4.Minor Saravanan ... Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 4 Vs.

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sattur Division, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Ealayirampannai Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.89/2023) ... 1st & 2nd Respondents/ Complainants

3. Thangadurai ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records relating to the FIR in Crime No.89 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police and 1/13

quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2 Mr.S.Sathya Chithambaram for R3

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking quashment of First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.89 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the petitioners returned back to their home, the defacto complainant's dog chased them and that they fell down from the vehicle and thereby a wordy quarrel erupted between them, wherein it is alleged that the petitioners have degraded the defacto complainant by using his caste name. In this regard, a case was registered against the petitioners in Crime No.89 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC r/w. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

2/13

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused as well as the third respondent/defacto complainant that the parties have compromised the disputes between them amicably before the High Court Legal Services Committee attached to this Court and the settlement agreement duly signed by the parties and also by their respective counsel has been filed before this Court. However, the question is whether this Court can permit the petitioners to compromise and basing on such compromise, whether the criminal case against the petitioner in Crime No.89 of 2023 can be quashed.

4. In the case of Ramgopal and Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2021 (6) CTC 240, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences. The relevant paragraphs read as under:- "18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even 3/13

in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.

19. We thus sumup and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in 4/13

mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

5. In another case in Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 2021 SC 5228, the Hon'ble Apex Court while quashing the proceedings registered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, held as under:- "18. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the present, the Courts ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress. It cannot be understated that since members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to the weaker sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of coercion, and therefore ought to be accorded a higher level 5/13

of protection. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to the accused party. What factors the Courts should consider, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

19. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the aforestated principles, as well as having meditated on the application for compromise, we are inclined to invoke the powers under Article 142 and quash the instant Criminal proceedings with the sole objective of doing complete justice between the parties before us. We say so for the reasons that: Firstly, the very purpose behind Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST is to deter castebased insults and intimidations when they are used with the intention of demeaning a victim on account of he/she belonging to the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community. In the present case, the record manifests that there was an undeniable preexisting civil dispute between the parties. The case of the Appellant, from the very beginning, has been that the alleged abuses were uttered solely on account of frustration and anger over the pending dispute. Thus, the genesis of the deprecated 6/13

incident was the aforestated civil/property dispute. Considering this aspect, we are of the opinion that it would not be incorrect to categorise the occurrence as one being overarchingly private in nature, having only subtle undertones of criminality, even though the provisions of a special statute have been attracted in the present case. Secondly, the offence in question, for which the Appellant has been convicted, does not appear to exhibit his mental depravity. The aim of the SC/ST Act is to protect members of the downtrodden classes from atrocious acts of the upper strata of the society.

It appears to us that although the Appellant may not belong to the same caste as the Complainant, he too belongs to the relatively weaker/backward section of the society and is certainly not in any better economic or social position when compared to the victim. Despite the rampant prevalence of segregation in Indian villages whereby members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community are forced to restrict their quarters only to certain areas, it is seen that in the present case, the Appellant and the Complainant lived in adjoining houses.

status of the Appellant, we are of the opinion that the overriding objective of the SC/ST Act would not be overwhelmed if the present proceedings are quashed. Thirdly, the incident occurred way back in the year 1994. Nothing on record indicates that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident had transpired between the parties. The State Counsel has also not brought to our attention any other occurrence that would lead us to believe that the Appellant is either a repeat offender or is unremorseful about what transpired. Fourthly, the Complainant has, on her own free will, without any compulsion, entered into a compromise and wishes to drop the present criminal proceedings against the accused. Fifthly, given the nature of the offence, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellant had been concluded.

Sixthly, the Appellant and the Complainant parties are residents of the same village and live in very close proximity to each other. We have no reason to doubt that the parties themselves have voluntarily settled their differences.

and to advance peace and harmony, it will be prudent to effectuate the present settlement.

20. Consequently, and for the aforementioned reasons, we find it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and quash the criminal proceedings to do complete justice between the parties. As a sequel thereto, judgment and orders passed by the Trial Court and the High Court are set aside. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. The appeal is allowed in above terms."

6. The High Court Legal Services Committee attached to this Court was directed to verify the identities of the defacto complainant and the accused with reference to the acceptable identity cards like Aadhar Card etc. and also make an informal inquiry as to whether the defacto complainant has been accepting for compromise voluntarily. Accordingly, the Officer incharge of the High Court Legal Services Committee/ Registrar (Judicial) sent a report after verifying their identities.

9/13

7. The offences alleged against the petitioners by the defacto complainant are under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC r/w. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act. It is not the case of the defacto complainant that there were disputes between them earlier. There were no any animosity between them earlier to this incident and the alleged incident developed at the spur of the moment when they fell down from their vehicle while the dog was chasing them. In case if trial is conducted, the defacto complainant and others required to appear before the Court to give evidence against the petitioners thereby irrespective of the fact whether the petitioners or the defacto complainant, the animosity between them will continue.

When both parties are coming together to resolve the disputes amicably and wanted to compromise the criminal case and when it is not on account of coercion and undue influence, this Court is of the opinion that the compromise can be recorded in order to meed the complete justice. Accordingly, this compromise is recorded.

8. In view of the the settlement arrived between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping 10/13

the matter pending and inclined to quash all further proceedings in Crime No. 89 of 2023 pending on the file of the first respondent police.

9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.89 of 2023, pending on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed. The compromise memo is recorded and the same shall form part of this order. 11.09.2023 2/2 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No PKN 11/13

To

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sattur Division, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

2. The Inspect of Police, Ealayirampannai Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

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

12/13

DR.D.NAGARJUN,J PKN Dated: 11.09.2023 2/2 13/13