Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 792
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
Senthil @ Senthil Kumar - Petitioners
Vs.
The State, By the Inspector of Police - Respondents
CRL.O.P.(MD)Nos.4631 of 2017 and 4635 of 2017
Decided on : 19-04-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr.D.Venkatesh
For the Respondent:Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate (Crl.side), Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
The court can consider compromise and the presence of case and counter case involving parties from the same village as grounds for quashing criminal proceedings.
Headnote:
Compromise - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - 147, 148, 324, 506(ii), 294(b), 3(2)(Va)
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed quash applications on the ground of compromise with the defacto complainants in cases involving offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings, considering the compromise between the parties and the presence of case and counter case involving parties from the same village.
Issues: Quashing of criminal proceedings based on compromise, applicability of SC/ST Act in compromise cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the compromise between the parties and the presence of case and counter case involving parties from the same village as grounds for quashing the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings, directing the petitioners to contribute to the removal of Seemai Karuvelam Trees.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4631 of 2017:
On the complaint lodged by the second respondent-Rajesh, the first respondent has registered a case in Crime No.105 of 2016 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code r/w 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2016 against the petitioners.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4635 of 2017:
2. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent-Senthil Kumar, a case in Crime No.106 of 2016 has been registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner herein.
3. These quash applications have been filed by the accused in the above cases on the ground that they have arrived at a compromise with the defacto complainant in both the cases.
4. Under normal circumstances, a First Information Report registered under the SC/ST Act cannot be quashed on the ground that the parties have arrived at a compromise. However, in this case, it is seen that there is a case and counter case, viz., Crime Nos.105 and 106 of 2016 and both parties belong to the same Village. That apart, Rajesh, who is a Dalit and who is the defacto complainant in Crime No.105 of 2016 and who is the accused in Crime No.106 of 2016, is present before this Court and he has also filed an affidavit dated 30.03.2017, in which, it is stated as follows:
"2.I submit that on 08.05.2016, based on my complaint, the 1st respondent registered a case in Crime No.105 of 2016 against the petitioners for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 506(ii) of the IPC and r/w 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2016. As per complaint on 08.05.2016 at about 7.30 p.m., I along with my brother Mayilsamy went near Government Boys Hostel situated near Kaliamman Kovil to urinate. At that time, one Mani came there and asked my mobile phone to make a call and made the call to the 1st petitioner. Thereafter, some 10 unknown persons came there in a TATA Ace vehicle with deadly weapons and objecting my entry in their street, scolded me and my brother by mentioning caste name and by using filthy language. By using iron rods, the petitioners attacked me and I also sustained injury because of the use of knife. Hence, I lodged the above complaint for taking action against the petitioners.
3. I submit that during pendency of the above case, as per the advice of our well-wishers and village elders, we have amicably settled the issue among ourselves. Since we got compromise, I agreed to say no objection for quashing the case as against the petitioners. Therefore, I don't want to continue the criminal proceedings in Crime No.105 of 2016, on the file the 1st respondent as against the petitioners and I agree to quash the above case as against the petitioners. In view of the same, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No.105 of 2016, on the file of the 1st respondent or otherwise I will be put to irreparable loss and hardship, on the other hand the 1st respondent will be no way prejudiced, if the case is quashed."
5. Similarly, the defacto complainant in Crime No.106 of 2016 has filed an affidavit dated 10.04.2017, in which, it is stated as follows:
"3. I submit that during pendency of the above case, as per the advice of well-wishers of both the family and under the advice of our village elders, we have amicably settled the issue among ourselves. Since we got compromise, I agreed to say no objection for quashing the case as against the petitioner. Therefore, I don't want to continue the criminal proceedings in Crime No.106 of 2016, on the file the 1st respondent as against the petitioner and I agree to quash the above case as against the petitioner. In view of the same, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No.106 of 2016, on the file of the 1st respondent or otherwise I will be put to irreparable loss and hardship, on the other hand the 1st respondent will be no way prejudiced,
