Madras High Court
Jeyaseelan vs State Represented By on 28 January, 2016
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.01.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.13737 of 2013
and 23272 of 2015
1. Jeyaseelan
2. Selvendran
3. Madanraj
4. Jeyaraj
5. Deivendran ... Petitioners/A1 to A5 in Crl.O.P.(MD)13737/13
1. Esakkiraja
2. Kumar @ Senthil Kumar
3. Surendar @ Suwendiran ... Petitioners/A1 to A3 in
Crl.O.P.(MD)23272/15
Vs.
1. State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
C-5, Silaiman Police Station,
Madurai.
(Crime No.67 of 2013) ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
in Crl.O.P.(MD)13737/13
2. Kesavan ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant
in Crl.O.P.(MD) 13737/13
1. State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
South Police Station,
Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.988 of 2015) ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
in Crl.O.P.(MD)23272/15
2. S.Ennasimuthu @ Maria Innasimuthu ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto
Complainant in Crl.O.P.(MD)23272/15
Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)13737/13: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to FIR registered in
Crime No.67 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)23272/15: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to call for records and quash the FIR in Crime No.998 of
2015 dated 11.11.2011 pending on the file of the respondent police.
!For Petitioners : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer
(in Crl.O.P.(MD)13737/13)
Mr.K.S.Bharathi
(in Crl.O.P.(MD)23272/15)
^For R1 : Mrs.S.Prabha
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai
(in Crl.O.P.(MD)13737/13)
Mr.C.Manthiramoorthi
(in Crl.O.P.(MD)23272/15)
:O R D E R
These petitions have been filed seeking to quash the case registered in Crime Nos.67/2013 and 998/2015 on the file of 1st respondent police respectively, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.
2. The details of cases registered against the petitioners are given in the tabular column below:
Sl. No. Case No. Crime No. Sections of Law
1.
Crl.O.P.(MD)13737/13 67/2013 147, 148, 506(ii) IPC r/w 20 r/w 30 of Indian Arms Act.
2. Crl.O.P.(MD)23272/15 998/2015 448, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act
3. Though these petitions were allowed on 14.12.2015 on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties, before signing these two orders, it was noticed that the offences committed by the petitioners are serious in nature, involving the commission of offences under the provisions of Special Enactment and therefore, these petitions were directed to be listed again for the purpose of recall of these orders in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit and Others vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2291, wherein it has been held that once the order is signed, it attains finality and Section 362 Cr.P.C. is a bar and the Court cannot recall the order, but however, if it is not signed, the Court empowers to recall the order.
4. When these matters are taken up for hearing today, the counsel for the petitioners/Accused have reiterated again that the accused persons and the defacto complainants have decided to settle their issues amicably among themselves. However, this Court has expressed its unwillingness to accept the respective compromise memos bearing in mind the nature of allegations and allowed the counsel on record to put forth their contention on merits irrespective of the compromise memo.
5. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that once the parties have entered into a compromise, then the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is of wide amplitude and the same can be invoked, if such quashing would meet the ends of justice. In the midst of their argument, the counsel for the petitioners has specifically drawn the attention of this Court to the specific language used in Section 482 Cr.P.C., to the effect that ?....to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.? Therefore, it is contended that the saving of the High Court's inherent powers is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose to the extent that a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.
6. On the contrary, the Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would, by relying on a judgment of this Court in V.Sekar vs. State by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch,Chennai Sub-Urban Police and another, reported in (2012) 2 CTC 593, submit that a declaration of law holding that a non- compoundable offence can be compounded on the ground that the parties have compromised among themselves will amount to creating a new provision in the Code, which is exclusively for the legislature to do. Such legislation cannot be made by a Judge made law. Therefore, he would further submit that this Court should restrain itself from quashing the proceedings on the ground of compromise reached between the parties in respect of non-compoundable offences.
7. When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.406, 530 and 864 of 2016 (Prabu and others vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police and others), decided on 28.01.2016, this Court considered the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in several cases, namely, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish and others [(2015) 8 SCC 307] and observed as under:
?11. If the offences against women and children and the IPC offences falling under the categories, like, murder, attempt to murder, offence against unsound mind, rape, bribe, fabrication of documents, false evidence, robbery, dacoity, abduction, kidnapping, minor girl rape, idol theft, preventing a public servant from discharging of his/her duty, outrage of woman modesty, counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes, etc., are allowed to be compounded, it will surely have serious repercussion on the society, as the above mentioned list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences clubbed with Special Enactment, like Arms Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act, TNPPDL Act, TNPID Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity, etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences......
........This Court feels that there cannot be any compromise in respect of the heinous and serious offences of mental depravity and in that case, the Court should be very slow in accepting the compromise. If the compromise is entertained mechanically by the Court, the accused will have the upper hand. The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to be exploited by the accused, who can well afford to wait for a logical conclusion. The antecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration before accepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.?
8. In view of the various rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to supra and the observations made therefrom, this Court is not inclined to accept the compromise entered into between the parties, as the cases have been registered for heinous and serious offences, including the one under Special Enactment.
Accordingly, while declining the request for quashment of the proceedings on the basis of the compromise, these two petitions are dismissed even on merits also and the respective 1st respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file Final Reports (either positive or negative) before the concerned jurisdictional Courts as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed To
1. The Inspector of Police, C-5, Silaiman Police Station, Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..