Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ELON BARRES – Appellant
Versus
STATE REP. BY – Respondent
CRL OP 27517/2015
['M/S R VIVEKANANTHAN', '', 'E RAJ THILAK', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PONDICHERRY', '', 'M/S K KRISHNAMOORTHY', 'S RAJ KUMAR']
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.11.2015
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
Crl.O.P.No.27517 of 2015
1.Elon Barres
2.Mrs.Vijayarani Barres
3.Mrs.Vijayadeepa Barres
4.Mr.Surendiran @ Suri
... Petitioners/Accused
Vs.
1. State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Muthiyalpet Police Station,
M.G.Road, Muthiyalpet,
Pudhucherry-605 003.
2. Mrs.Aguila
... Respondents/Complainant and
Defacto Complainant.
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to
call for the records in C.C.No.279 of 2012 pending on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudhucherry and to
quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Vivekananthan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Balamurugan, APP (For R1)
Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy (For R2)
* * * * *
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to
quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.279 of 2012 pending on
the file of the learned Judicial magistrate No.II, Pudhucherry.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd
respondent/defacto-complainant is the wife of the 1st
petitioner's son viz., Barres Udayakumar. The petitioners
herein are the in-laws of the 2nd respondent. The marriage
between the 2nd respondent and the son of the 1st petitioner viz.,
Barres Udayakumar took place on 04.08.2006. After the marriage,
the 2nd respondent and her husband resided in the matrimonial
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
home along with the petitioners herein and it is alleged that
during that time, the petitioners harassed the 2nd respondent.
Hence, a complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent in M.C.No.5
of 2010 under the Domestic Violence Act, against the petitioners
herein and her husband, before the learned Judiciail Magistrate
No.II, Pudhucherry.
After completion of investigation,
chargesheet was filed by the 1st respondent-police and the same
was taken on file in C.C.279 of 2012 under Sections 294, 354,
498A, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Now,
the petitioners have come forward with the present petition
before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.
3.When the matter came up for herein on 26.11.2015, both the
parties appeared before this Court and represented that they
have arrived at an amicable settlement. Today, when the matter
is taken up for consideration, the 2nd respondent/defacto-
complainant has filed an affidavit stating that they have
entered into a compromise deed dated 27.09.2015 and under the
said compromise deed, her husband Earres Udayakumar has paid a
sum of Rs.5 lakhs to her by way of Demand Draft towards full and
final settlement; that she has no objection in quashing the
complaint in C.C.No.279 of 2012 pending on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudhucherry.
4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in
view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, I am of
the opinion that the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.279 of 2012
pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Pudhucherry, are liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same
are quashed.
In fine, the criminal original petition is allowed.
ssv
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Pudhucherry.
2. do thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Puducherry.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. The Inspector of Police,
Muthiyalpet Police Station,
M.G.Road, Muthiyalpet,
Pudhucherry-605 003.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Madras.
skv(co)
prk17/12
Crl.O.P.No.27517 of 2015
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
