Madras High Court
Dharmalakshmi vs State Represented By on 27 October, 2017
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.10.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14446 of 2017
1.Dharmalakshmi
2.Dharmar ... Petitioners / Accused
-Vs-
1.State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District.
(In Crime No.464 of 2015) ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Jamuna ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to quash the charge sheet in S.C.No.56 of2016 on the file
of the 3rd Additional District Court (Special Court for PCR cases),
Tirunelveli.
!For Petitioners :Mr.R.Manimaran
^For R-1 :Mr.K.S.Durapandian
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R-2 :Mr.M.Selvakumar
:ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in S.C.No.56 of2016 on the file of the 3rd Additional District Court (Special Court for PCR cases), Tirunelveli.
2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3.The petitioners are accused No.1 and 2 in S.C.No.56 of 2016. Based on the complaint received from the second respondent, against the petitioners, a case was registered in Cr.No.464 of 2015, on the file of the Thenthamarai Kulam Police Station, Kanyakumari District, for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 354 and 355 IPC, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women From Harassment Act and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file by the 3rd Additional District Court (Special Court for PCR cases), Tirunelveli. in S.C.No.56 of 2016.
4.It appears that the petitioners and the de-facto complainant have settled their dispute amicably out of Court, at the instigation of relatives and well wishers of both families and they have also entered into a compromise. The parties have filed a Joint Compromise Memo, signed by both parties, in the presence of their respective counsel. As per the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent has agreed for quashing the proceedings in in S.C.No.56 of 2016, on the file of the 3rd Additional District Court (Special Court for PCR cases), Tirunelveli, by allowing this petition.
5.The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed the Joint Compromise Memo on their own will and free volition. The identity of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identity of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor through the first respondent police.
6.Having regard to the specific terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, this Court is of the view that no useful or fruitful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending.
Hence the Charge Sheet in in S.C.No.56 of 2016, on the file of the 3rd Additional District Court (Special Court for PCR cases), Tirunelveli, is quashed in toto. The Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.
7.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Additional District Court-III (Special Court for PCR cases), Tirunelveli.
.