ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

2. The petitioners figured as accused in S.C.No.251 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenkasi. After trial, the learned trial Judge, by judgment, dated 04.09.2019 found them guilty and also sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed C.A.No.98 of 2018 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. During the pendency of the appeal, the accused and the victims buried the hatchet. The parties wanted to compound the matter. The learned Sessions Judge felt that it may not be open to him to grant the said relief. In these circumstances, this Criminal Original Petition came to be filed.

3. Before me, all the victims, the defacto complainant as well as the other victims appeared in person. The petitioners also appear before me. The defacto complainant as well as the victims frankly told me that they have long ago decided to treat the matter as closed. In fact, matrimonial alliance has also taken place between the two sides. More than the petitioners, the victims felt that the proceedings should be terminated. The occurance itself had taken place wayback in the year 2008. The occurance took place in connection with a temple festival. Subsequently, the festival continues to be celebrated every year and there has been no subsequent occurrence. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision reported in CDJ 2021 SC 846 Ramawatar vs State of Madhya Pradesh, in which, it is held as follows:

“13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in postconviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one ot the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appeallate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sinequanon to involve the superior court's plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceeedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).”

3. Respectfully applying the aforesaid ratio, since the parties have compromised the matter between themselves, continuance of the impugned prosecution is not necessary. The power of Quashing the proceedings can be invoked even at the appellate stage. The impugned proceedings stands quashed. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

22.12.2021 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No mga Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To

1.Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.

2.Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenkasi.

3.The Inspector of Police, Coutrallam Police Station, Tenkasi District.

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

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

mga

22.12.2021