Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 4000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, J.
K.M.Shaji Kumar – Appellant
Vs.
The Inspector of Police, Chennai – Respondent
Crl.O.P.Nos.26464 & 26402 of 2017
Decided on : 19-12-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr.W.M.Abdul Majeed
For the Respondent: Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, Ms.G.Sumitra,
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 320 and 482 - Defacto complainant - Lawful adoption - Custody - Petitioners herein originated from a TV Show titled that came to be telecasted in a private channel namely, Zee Tamil - Defacto complainant who was personally present before this Court on stated that she along with her husband had wholeheartedly consented to give her third male 3 months old child namely in adoption to the first and second petitioners herein in view of their inability to bring up child owing to poverty - Pursuant to her consent, an adoption deed came to be registered on file of Sub Registrar, registered - While that being so, there arose a matrimonial dispute between the defacto complainant and her husband, in consequence of which, she was advised to participate in the TV Show being regularly telecasted in the private Channel, in order to ventilate her grievances against her husband - Being innocent of nature of TV Show, she had also contacted said channel, wherein certain persons responsible for the telecast of show had tutored her to highlight the issue of her adoption by compelling her to falsely state that her husband had sold child to first and second petitioners - affidavit shockingly narrates as to how, a noble gesture of an unwanted child being given in a lawful adoption with consent of biological parents turned into a nightmare and agony to adoptive parents owing to screenplay and direction of persons behind telecast of TV Show - It would be useful to extract entire affidavit filed by biological mother of child - Held, petitioners 1 & 2, being the adoptive parents of the minor child, were constrained to approach this Court seeking for anticipatory bail - While their anticipatory bail applications were under consideration, the first respondent police had retrieved child from adoptive parents and put the 11 month old infant under custody of a private hom - Infant, thus became deprived of both its adoptive parents as well as biological parents - Consequently, first respondent had also reported before this Court that infant was secured and its custody has been handed over to the child care home - Since biological parents affirmed that they have no objection for handing over custody of infant to adoptive parents on same day, an interim order came to be passed with a direction to hand over immediate custody of infant to the adoptive parents and accordingly matter was adjourned - On all parties appeared before this Court and reported that the custody of the infant has been restored to the adoptive parents and biological mother also affirmed that she was happy and contented to know that infant has been restored to the adoptive parents - Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2017 stands allowed and the Crl.O.P.No.26402 of 2017 stands closed.
The prayer sought for in Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2017 is to call for the records in Crime No.3 of 2017, pending on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.
2. When the matter came up for hearing today, the petitioners as well as the second respondent/defacto complainant are personally present before this Court. In order to identify themselves, the petitioners and the second respondent have submitted the photo copies of their Aadhar Cards viz., Shaji Kumar K.M.-3474 2776 4939, Sheeja K.S.- 4513 2093 5582, Monhanraj R- 3265 1645 8011 & Sumathi M-4107 8777 0728 and after verification of the original cards, the same are recorded.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. The officials namely, Mr.R.Raja Srinivas, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Mrs.K.Uma Maheswari, Inspector of Police appeared in person on behalf of the CBCID-ATC-Wing, Egmore, Chennai.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that pending Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2017, the defacto complainant and the petitioners have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves and accordingly, they have entered into a compromise.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition saying that by taking into account of the seriousness of the offences and in view of the Sections 370(4), 120(b), 384 of I.P.C. and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the offences are not compoundable.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment in Unnikrishnan @ Unnikuttan Vs. State of Kerala in Crl.MP. No. 18630 of 2016 dated 01.03.2017 has held that even in case where the offences are not compoundable registered under Section 320 Cr.P.C., compounding can be considered in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:
“11. What emerges from the above is that even if an offence is not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Court may, in view of eh compromise arrived at between the parties, reduce the sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction.
12. Having regard to the facts of the present case, while taking into account the settlement arrived at between the parties and also considering the affidavits filed before us by each one of the applicants by way of joint application, we allow the application seeking permission to compound the offences.
7. In view of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by permitting the petitioners to compound the offences in view of the compromise arrived at between parties.
8. Recording the submissions made by the defacto complainant as well as the affidavit filed by her dated 07.12.2017, the investigation in Crime No.3 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police is quashed. The Criminal Original Petition viz., Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2017 stands allowed.
9. Before parting with the case, I was shocked to realise the circumstances under which the FIR came to be registered against the petitioners herein.
10. The entire episode leading to filing of the FIR against the petitioners herein originated from a TV Show titled Sollvathallam Unmai that came to be telecasted in a private channel namely, Zee Tamil on 10.07.2017 and 11.07.2017. The defacto complainant who was personally present before this Court on 04.12.2017 stated that she, along with her husband, had wholeheartedly consented to give her third male 3 months old child namely, Master Mukunthan @ Madhav Shaji in adoption to the first and second petitioners herein, in view of their inability to bring up the child owing to poverty. Pursuant to her consent, an adoption deed came to be registered on 09.03.2017 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sriperumbadur, registered as Doc.No.13/IV/2017. The custody of her minor child was also handed ove
