Lakshmi v. Saratha

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.02.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL.OP.(MD).No.2290 of 2025 and CRL.MP(MD).Nos.1608 & 1609 of 2025 Lakshmi ... Petitioner/Accused No.6 Vs.

Saratha ... Respondent/De-facto complainant Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in S.C.No.19 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram District and quash the same.

For Petitioner:

Mr.A.Uthaya Kumar For Respondent:

Mr.A.Senthurpandi 1/6

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to to call for the records in S.C.No.19 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram District and quash the same.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the petitioner and the respondent along with their respective counsels are present and filed Joint Compromise Memo. The respondent represented that she lodged the complaint before the Magistrate and thereafter the case is pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram District.

3. The case is still under the trial. 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, dated 11.12.2024, has been filed before this Court, which has been signed by the petitioner and the respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioner and the 2/6

respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by the respondent police, as well as by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The respondent has no objection to quash the petition. Since, they entered into compromise.

5. In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and now the parties had compromised. When the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offences under Sections 147, 294 (b), 341, 323, 506 (I) of IPC.

6. The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat) 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 3/6

the proceedings in S.C.No.19 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram District, pending 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 S.C.No.19 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram District, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo dated 11.12.2024 shall form part and parcel of this order. Connected misceallenous petitions are closed.

13.02.2025 (2/2) NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes nst 4/6

To

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Inspector of Police Sikkal Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

5/6

P.DHANABAL , J.

nst CRL.OP.(MD).No.2290 of 2025 Dated: 13.02.2025 (2/2) 6/6