On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.80 of 2013 and after completion of investigation, has filed a final report in C.C.No.228 of 2013 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi, for offences under Sections 294(b), 355, 344, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act r/w Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code against four accused, challenging which, the accused are before this Court for quashing the prosecution on the ground that the parties have arrived at a compromise.
2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.K.Natarajan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station is present in Court. The defacto complainant is present and the petitioners are also present and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) through Mr.K.Natarajan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station.
3. The petitioners and the second respondent have filed a joint compromise memo dated 14.03.2017, in which, it has been stated as follows:
"4. It is submitted that the petitioners filed quash petition before this Hon'ble Court in Crl.O.P.No.3261 of 2013 and the same is pending. Now the petitioners and the respondent No.2 settled their dispute in amicable manner before family elders and relatives.
5. That the petitioners and the defacto complainant settled their dispute in amicable manner. Therefore the defacto complainant does not want to proceed with the case further against the petitioners, in that effect the petitioners and the defacto complainant are jointly submitting this compromise memo before this Hon'ble Court.
Therefore, the petitioners and the defacto complainant most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this joint compromise memo submitted by the petitioners and the defacto complainant and pass appropriate order and thus render justice."
4. It is admitted by both parties that the property purchased in the name of the wife, but, it was in the possession of the husband, has been restored to the wife.
5. In view of the joint memo of compromise dated 14.03.2017, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.228 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi, in respect of all the accused, are hereby quashed.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The joint compromise memo dated 14.03.2017 shall form part of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To:
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..