SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ramaiah Asari vs State Represented By on 1 August, 2019

Crl.O.P.No.10907 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 01.08.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10907 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P(MD).No.6857 6656 of 2019

1.Ramaiah Asari
2.Kuppammal
3.Priya
4.Venkatesan : Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5

Versus
1.State represented by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Tallakulam Police Station
(Oomachikulam)
Madurai District
(Crime No.129 of 2006) : Respondent No.1/Complainant

2.Mareeswari : Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant

Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
praying to call for the records and quash the charge sheet made in C.C.No.
234 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate/Additional Mahila Court,
Madurai.

1/12

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.10907 of 2019

For Petitioners : Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi,
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.R.Raja Mohan
*******
ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the

charge sheet made in C.C.No.234 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate/Additional Mahila Court, Madurai.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as the accused Nos.2 to 5 in

Crime No.129 of 2006 registered for the offence under Section 309 I.P.C

later it was altered into Sections 498A and Section406 of the Indian Penal Code

and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, based on the complaint given by the

second respondent/defacto complainant. After completing investigation, a

charge sheet has been filed, after taking cognizance, the matter is pending

in C.C.No.234 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate/Additional

Mahila Court, Madurai. Now, to quash the above criminal proceedings, the

present petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as

the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto

1/12

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.10907 of 2019

complainant submitted that the defacto complainant is the wife of the

accused No.1. Petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 5 are in-laws of the defacto

complainant. The marriage was solemnized between the first

accused/husband and the second respondent/wife on 24.05.2004. Due to

matrimonial dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant,

the defacto complaint lodged a complaint before the first respondent.

Thereafter, the first accused/husband left his home, whereabouts of the first

accused/husband is not known to anyone for the past 10 years. The defacto

complainant also got second married with another person namely

Venkatesan. Now, both the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto

complainant have settled the dispute between themselves amicably in the

presence of elders and the second respondent/defacto complainant is not

willing to proceed further with the criminal case.

4.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, both the

petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant are present in

Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. On enquiry, both

parties have stated that they have settled the dispute between themselves

in the presence of elders, in view of the settlement arrived at, the defacto

complainant is not willing to proceed with the criminal case any further.

1/12

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.10907 of 2019

5. It is settled law that the High Court has inherent power under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal

proceedings even for the offences which are not compoundable under

Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the parties have

settled their dispute between themselves. However, while quashing the

criminal proceedings, based on the settlement arrived at between the

parties, the High Court should act with caution and the power should be

exercised sparingly only in order to secure the ends of justice and also to

prevent abuse of process of any Court.

6. SectionIn Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012 (10) SCC 303],

the Supreme Court has held as follows:

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can

be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal

proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is

distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for

compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is

of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in

accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends

of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases

power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be

1/12

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.10907 of 2019

exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would

depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be

prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must

have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious

offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.

cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the

offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and

have a serious impact on society.”

7. SectionIn Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2014(6) SCC 466],

after considering the Gian Singh’s case referred to above, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held as follows:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the
Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the
parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is
to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis
petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in
such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on
either of the aforesaid two objectives.

1/12

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.10907 of 2019

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which
involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have
a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been
committed under special statute like the SectionPrevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity
are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the
victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those
arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial
relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have
resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to
whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation
of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
cases.”

8. SectionIn Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2017 SC 4843],

the Supreme Court held thus”

“(1) Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High
Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends
of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and
preserves powers which inherent in the High Court.

(2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a
first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a

1/12

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.10907 of 2019

settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not
the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding
an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is
governed by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC. The power to quash
under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify
the exercise of the inherent power.

(4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit
and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

(5) the decision as to whether a complaint or first information report
should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled
the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case
and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulate.

(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing
with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious
offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and
dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not
private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to
continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of
public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

(7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal
cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil

1/12

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.10907 of 2019

dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the
inherent power to quash is concerned.

(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial,
financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an
essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing
where parties have settled the dispute.

(9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the
possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal
proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
(10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in Propositions
(8) and (9) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic
well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a
mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be
justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity
akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences
of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh
in the balance.”

9. Recently, in SectionState of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan

[AIR 2019 SC 1296], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering all the

above judgments, has held as follows:

“i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section
320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly
the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions
or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the

1/12

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.10907 of 2019

parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which
involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have
a serious impact on society;

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under
the special statutes like SectionPrevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be
quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the
offender;

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the SectionArms Act etc. would fall
in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be
treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and
therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC
and/or the SectionArms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot
be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the
ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst
themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely
because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is
framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine
as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or
the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would
lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it
would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained,
whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court
would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation
and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such
exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation.

1/12

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.10907 of 2019

Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the
decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated
hereinabove;

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which
are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the
ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the
offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the
accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was
absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the
complainant to enter into a compromise etc.”

10. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us now consider

the instant case as to whether it is a fit case to quash the criminal

proceedings based on the settlement arrived at between the parties.

11. On a perusal of record discloses that due to matrimonial

dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, the accused

No.1/husband left his home, thereafter his whereabouts is not known to

anyone for the past 10 years. The defacto complainant also got married with

another person, now they are living happily, the offences are not serious in

nature, even though the crime was registered for the offence under Section

309 I.P.C later it was altered into Section 498A, Section406 of the Indian Penal

1/12

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.10907 of 2019

Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Now, the petitioners and the

second respondent/defacto complainant have amicably settled their dispute

between themselves in the presence of elders and relatives of both the

family, now the second respondent/wife and her husband namely

Venkatesan are living together happily in the matrimonial home. In view of

the compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction is also

remote and bleak. In the above circumstances, continuity of the criminal

proceedings would only cause oppression and prejudice to the parties,

hence, in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to quash

the criminal proceedings.

12.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and

the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein in

C.C.No.234 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate/ Additional

Mahila Court, Madurai, is quashed. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

01.08.2019

Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
msa
msa
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J

1/12

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.10907 of 2019

msa

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate Cum Additional Mahila Court,
Madurai

2. The Sub Inspector of Police,
Tallakulam Police Station
(Oomachikulam)
Madurai District

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

Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10907 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.6857 6656 of 2019

Dated: 01.08.2019

1/12

http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 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