SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jeyaprakash vs State Rep.By on 18 July, 2018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 18.07.2018

CORAM

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11286 of 2018

1.Jeyaprakash
2.Kodiraj
3.Jeyakodi
4.Mokkaraj
5.Vasantha .. Petitioners
vs.

1.State rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Manamadurai
Sivagangai District.
Crime No.4 of 2018.

2.Kodeeshwari .. Respondents

Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to
call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.4 of 2018 on
the file of the Inspector of Police All women Police Station, Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Anbarasu
^For R1 : Mr.Prabhu Ramachandran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.M.Perumal

:ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime
No.4 of 2018 pending on the file of the first respondent police.

2.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, the
first respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2018 for the
offence under Sections 496, 204, 506(2) and 376 IPC against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 and in order to quash the same, the
petitioners are before this Court by filing the present petition.

3.According to the petitioners, the first petitioner has married
the second respondent/defacto complainant before registration of the present
case in Crime No.4 of 2018. The petitioners 4 and 5 are the parents of the
first petitioner and the other petitioners are the relatives of the first
petitioner. Further it is submitted that this Court has referred the matter
to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench to effect
amicable settlement between the parties. Both parties have appeared before
the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and the dispute between the parties has
been settled. Thereafter, the marriage of the first petitioner and second
respondent has been registered before the Marriage Registrar/Joint Sub
Registrar, Madurai North on 23.04.2018 and to that effect marriage
certificate has also been produced. At this stage, both the parties have come
before this Court seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.4 of 2018, on the
ground that they have arrived at compromise.

4.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, M/s.Arul
Rosy, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District is present. The defacto complainant and the petitioners
are present and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in
addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned
Government Advocate (Criminal side) through M/s.Arul Rosy, the Inspector of
Police, All Women Police Station, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. Learned
counsel appearing for the parties also endorsed the identify of their
respective parties.

5.The petitioner has filed a joint memo of compromise on
04.07.2018 along with the present quash petition, wherein, it is stated as
follows:

“whereas the 2nd respondent herein already married the 1st petitioner
before registering the FIR and further this Hon’ble Court referred the case
in Crl.O.P(MD)No.4878 of 2018 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre,
Madurai High Court and both the parties appeared and resolved not to proceed
with the criminal case in the trial any further either against the petitioner
in further also, and the marriage was also registered before the Joint Sub
Registrar, Madurai North on 23.04.2018.

Whereas in the light of the above compromise, the parties hereto shall
not claim with regard to in this criminal case also. The 2nd respondent is
not interested to proceed with the criminal case in Crime No.4 of 2018 on the
file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District against the petitioners.

The 2nd respondent undertakes to not interested to proceed with the
criminal case further any at any point of time against the petitioners
herein. Therefore, the 2nd respondent was agreed to quash the proceedings in
Cr.No.4 of 2018 on the file of the the Inspector of Police, All Women Police
Station, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District against the petitioners…?

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support
of his contention, has relied upon the order passed by this Court in
Crl.O.P.No.7561 of 2017 [Suresh and others Vs. The State rep.by the Inspector
of Police, All Women Police Station, Valliyoor and another] dated 20.06.2017,
wherein, this Court has quashed the proceedings for the offence under Section
376 IPC.

7.Even though the offence under Section 376 IPC involved in the
present case is non-compoundable in nature, considering the fact that now the
second respondent/defacto complainant have got married and now they are
living happily and second respondent/defacto complainant has also no
objection to quash the case in Crime No.4 of 2018 and to that effect a joint
compromise memo has also been filed on 04.07.2018, this Court is of the
opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending.
Therefore, the entire proceedings in Crime No.4 of 2018 pending on the file
of the first respondent in respect of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 are
hereby quashed.

8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the
basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The joint
compromise memo filed on 04.07.2018 shall form part of this order.

9.In this case, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners are willing to contribute some amount to the
District Legal Services Authority, Dindigul under the Head ?Environmental
Fund? to preserve the environment. Hence, each petitioner is directed to
remit a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Total sum of Rs.5,000/-) as costs within a period
of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by way of an
individual/collective Demand Draft drawn in favour of the District Legal
Services Authority, Dindigul who shall receive the said amount as
?Environmental Fund? and make use of the said amount for the

purposes mentioned in the order passed by this Court in CRP (NPD) No.1643 of
2010 on 20.06.2018 [D.Govindasamy Vs. L.Ganesh Naidu (Deceased) and 2
others]. A report in this regard shall be sent by the District Legal Services
Authority, Dindigul to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services
Authority, Chennai, mentioning clearly the amounts spent towards the purposes
mentioned in the above order and the balance amount left etc.,

To

1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Manamadurai
Sivagangai District.

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

3.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State
Legal Services Authority, Chennai.

4.The District Legal Services Authority,
Dindigul.

.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation