Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2055
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
Karthikeyan & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (South), Madurai & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 10323 of 2017
Decided On : 07-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Sureshkumar
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Anbarasan, Mr. M. Shakul Hameed
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to quash criminal proceedings based on a joint compromise memo signed by the parties, indicating their willingness to settle the dispute amicably outside of the court.
Headnote:
Compromise - Criminal Proceedings - The court quashed the charge sheet and criminal proceedings based on a joint compromise memo signed by the parties, which indicated their willingness to settle the dispute amicably outside of the court and not pursue further proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were charged with offenses under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) of IPC based on a complaint. The second respondent, who was the complainant, also filed a maintenance case and a petition for divorce. The parties entered into a compromise, agreeing to settle their dispute amicably outside of the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had signed a joint compromise memo on their own will and volition, and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. Therefore, the court quashed the criminal proceedings based on the joint compromise memo.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed based on the joint compromise memo signed by the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the terms of the joint compromise memo, which indicated the parties' willingness to settle the dispute amicably outside of the court and not pursue further proceedings.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original petition was allowed, and the criminal proceedings pending in C.C.No.327 of 2016 were quashed in toto based on the joint compromise memo signed by the parties.
This Criminal Original petition is filed to call for records and quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 327 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Judge, Magistrate Level, Madurai which pertains to the Crime No. 2 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent police.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3. On the basis of complaint received from the second respondent, a case was registered in Crime No. 2 of 2016 as against the petitioners/A1 to A6 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 506(i) of IPC on the file of the first respondent Police and subsequently, the charge sheet was filed in C.C. No. 327 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Judge, Magistrate Level, Madurai. The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused are husband, in-laws and relatives of second respondent herein. The second respondent also filed maintenance case in M.C. No. 95 of 2015 and a petition for divorce in HMOP.No.348 of 2016, before the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai as against the first petitioner.
4. It appears that parties have also entered into a compromise vide compromise memo dated 02.02.2017 and it was acted upon. In terms of compromise memo parties have agreed to settle their dispute amicably outside of the Court. A separate joint memo of compromise dated 28.07.2017 is filed before this Court. As per the memo, the second respondent also agreed not to pursue the further proceedings in C.C.No.327 of 2016 and she has no objection to quash the case subject to the terms of compromise memo. It is also found that the compromise that was signed on 28.07.2017 contemplate certain conditions regarding payment of money. As per clause 5 (vi), the first petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on the date of evidence before the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai on 05.08.2017. Since the Court was on leave, the matter is adjourned to 24.08.2017. However, payment as per terms ensured by the petitioner. The de facto complainant has agreed that proceedings in C.C.No.327 of 2016 can be quashed.
5. The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed in the Joint Compromise Memo on their own will and volition.
6. Having regard to the terms of the joint memo of compromise, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence the criminal proceedings pending in C.C.No.327 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Judge, Magistrate Level, Madurai, is quashed in toto and the Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed.
