Rajeshwaran v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.(MD) No.21195 of 2022 1.Rajeshwaran 2.Senthil Murugan 3.Gnanasoundari 4.Lakshmi @ Subbulakshmi 5.Valliammal ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 5 Vs.
1.The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai City.
Crime No.1358 of 2021.
2.Suresh
...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records of the FIR in Crime No.1358 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent Police dated 02.12.2021 and quash the same as illegal.
For petitioners : Mr.B.Viswanathan 1/6
For R-1 : Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R-2 : Mr.T.Sugadev O R D E R This petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.1358 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioners herein.
2. It is seen that the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police, based on which, a case in Crime No.1358 of 2021 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) IPC.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, a Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court, which has been duly signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsels.
4. The counsel appearing on either side filed a Joint Memo of Compromise dated 09.12.2022, duly stating that during the pendency 2/6
of this petition, the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant have entered into compromise and appeared before the Registrar of this Court and the parties were identified by the Registrar.
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.
offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity, etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. As held by the Apex Court, insofar the offences arising out of matrimonial dispute, relating to dowry or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature, are concerned, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, in case the parties resolve their entire 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 09.12.2022, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Therefore, the First Information Report in Crime No.1358 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent Police is quashed, in respect of the petitioners alone. 4/6
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The joint compromise memo dated 09.12.2022 shall form part of this order. 27.03.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ssb To 1.The Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai City.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
M.DHANDAPANI. J.
ssb 27.03.2024 6/6