Loganathan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.21917 of 2022 in Crl.M.P(MD) No.15442 of 2022
1. Loganathan
2. Thiyamuthu @ Deivannayaki
3. Arunkumar ... petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 Vs.
1.The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime.No.15/2021).
... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Vinothini ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C.No.69 of 2022 on the file of Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram and Quash the same as against the petitionerss/Accused Nos.2 to 4. 1/6
For petitioners : Mr.M.Subashbabu, Senior Counsel, for M/s. Subash Law Associates.
For R1 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.R.Maheswaran O RDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.69 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram.
2.The contention of the petitioners is that based on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No.15 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323, 506(i), 406 IPC an Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the petitioners.
3. It is the matrimonial issue between the first accused and the second respondent. The third petitioners, who is residing in Scotland is verified by the defacto complainant and the learned counsel for the petitioners on record.
2/6
4. The second respondent has stated that because of mutual agreement between the parties, the first accused and the second respondent were seperating, by which Rs.25,00,000/- has been paid as permanent alimony to the second respondent. So far the child is concerned, the second respondent is willing to take care of the child. 5.The further contention of the petitioners is that they compromised the issue with the 2nd respondent amicably. A joint memo of compromise was filed, which has been duly signed by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent and also by their respective counsels. 6.The petitioners and the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court along with their counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards. They were also identified by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Investigation Officer. Both the parties were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence, the Compromise Memo is recorded.
7.Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners and also in view of the joint compromise memo, dated 16.02.2023, this Court is of the opinion that no 3/6
useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending. Hence, all further proceedings in C.C.No.69 of 2022 pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, is quashed and the compromise memo is recorded.
8.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.69 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
14.06.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Indu Note:Issue order copy on 14.08.2023 4/6
To 1.The Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
G.ILANGOVAN. J.
Indu 14.06.2023 6/6