Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

T.Santhiyagu vs State Rep. By

Madras High Court|07 February, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in C.C.No.137 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul and quash the same.
2.All the petitioners have been charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 120(b),417,494,498(A) and 506(i) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3.Joint compromise memo signed by the petitioner No.1 and the defacto complainant and also the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the defacto complainant has been filed.
4.No doubt, some of the offences charge sheeted against the petitioners are not compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012(10) Supreme Court Cases 303 held that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings may be exercised, where the parties have settled their disputes depending on the facts and circumstances of each case and listed category of cases in which such power can be exercised by way of illustration. In this case, the offences alleged to have been committed relate to matrimonial dispute and therefore, power enshrined under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can be exercised.
5.As per the above judgment and also the considering the nature of the offence involved in this case and also the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that allowing the proceedings to continue will not serve any purpose and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.137 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul against the petitioners are quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

T.Santhiyagu vs State Rep. By

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
07 February, 2017