SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
G.Immanuel – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No.16243 of 2022
Decided on : 19-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.D.Velmurugan
For the Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak

Courts can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on compromise between parties if the offences are purely individual in nature and do not involve overriding public interest.

Headnote:

Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Compromise between Parties

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings for offences under section 498[A] of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, citing a compromise between the parties.

Finding of the Court:

The court considered the nature of the offence, the compromise between the parties, and the absence of overriding public interest, and decided to quash the criminal proceedings.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court could quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences based on a compromise between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on guidelines from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing that offences purely individual in nature, without overriding public interest, could be quashed based on compromise between the parties.

Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the First Information Report registered in Crime No.05 of 2022 was quashed.

ORDER :

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crime No.05 of 2022 pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Chennai District and to quash the proceedings as against the petitioners.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Crime No.05 of 2022 pending investigation before the first respondent for the offences under section 498[A] of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The allegations against the petitioners is that the first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant and the second petitioner her mother-in-law. The further allegation against the petitioners is that they demanded more dowry from the defacto complainant and harassed her.

3. The petitioners have stated in the petition that during the pendency of the case, a compromise has been effected between the parties and they have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and they are living together as husband and wife and hence, the second respondent is not willing to pursue this case and seeks to quash the First Information registered as against the petitioners.

4. Ms.M.Thilagavathy, Grade I Police Constable was present before this Court and she identified the defacto complainant.

5. The Defacto Complainant is also present before this Court at the time of hearing. This Court enquired the defacto complainant and she stated that they had amicably settled the dispute between themselves and she is not willing to proceed with the the criminal proceedings and seeks to quash the same.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence has to consider the issue as to whether an offence of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

7. The main issue that requires consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences pending against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath, reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 and in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash non-compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences against the society with overriding public interest even if it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.

8. In the present case, the offence in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and quashing the proceedings, will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. Further, the defacto complainant and the first petitioner have amicably settled their issues and they are now living together happily. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.05 of 2022 pending investigation before the first respondent, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First Information Report registered in Crime No.05 of 2022 is quashed. The affidavit filed by the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top