1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3767 and 17021 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 Kathirvel ... Petitioner/A3 in Crl.O.P.No.3767 of 2011 1.R.Sundaram 2.M.Mohamed Abbash ... Petitioners/A2 and 5 in Crl.O.P.No.17021 of 2011 Vs. 1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, ..1st Respondent/Complainant in Madurai District. Crl.O.P.No.3767 of 2011& 1st respondent in Crl.O.P.No.17021 of 2011 2.The Inspector of Police (Crime), Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai, Madurai District. ... 2nd respondent/Complainant in Crl.O.P.No.17021 of 2011 3.Revathi ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto complainant in Crl.O.P.No.3767 of 2011 & 3rd Respondent/Defacto complainant in Crl.O.P.No.17021 of 2011 Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.3767 of 2011: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.204 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai, Madurai and quash the same insofar as the petitioner/Accused No.3 is concerned. Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.17021 of 2011: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the Charge sheet in C.C.No.204 of 2010 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai. For Petitioner in : Mr.D.Sivaraman Crl.O.P.No.3767/2011 For Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.17021/11 : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For 1st Respondent : Mr.P.Kannithevan, (Crl.O.P.3767/2011) Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) For 1st & 2nd respondents (Crl.O.P.17021/11) For 2nd respondent in Crl.O.P.No.3767/11 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 For 3rd respondents in Crl.O.P.No.17021/11 : Mr.M.Maharaj COMMON ORDER These petitions have been filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.204 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai, Madurai and quash the same. 2.The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.17021 of 2011 are A2 and A5 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.3767 of 2011 is A3 in C.C.No.204 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai. The defacto complainant is one Revathi, who is the 2nd respondent in Crl.O.P.No.3767 of 2011 and the 3rd respondent in Crl.O.P.No.17021 of 2011 and A1 has not joined in this petitioner and A4 was dead. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the dispute in between the petitioners in both the petitioners and the defacto complainant have been settled in between them and a compromise memo has been filed to that effect. He would further submit that the compromise memo may be recorded and the case in C.C.No.204 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai may be quashed. 4.He would further submit that the presence of A1 is not necessary, since, the defacto complainant herself has withdrawn the complaint and she is present before this Court and the perusal of the affidavit filed by her would confirm that the matter has been settled in between them and she has no inclination to pursue the case. 5.He would further submit that even after the compromise reached in between the parties,if C.C.No.204 of 2010 is directed to have been continued, it would be an empty formality and nothing would be achieved, it would be also a futile exercise. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.204 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai may be quashed, including the 1st accuwed, who has not joined in this petition and A4, who was already dead. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would submit in his argument that the entire dispute between the parties has been compromised and the defacto complainant has filed the affidavit to the effect that the complaint need not be pursued and the proceedings may be quashed. 7.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in her argument that she has no serious objection since the matter has been settled in between the parties. He would further submit that the major offence in the case would be under Section 420 I.P.C and hence, suitable orders may be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8.Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the dispute in between the parties have been entirely compromised as per the submissions made by the defacto complainant and the accused persons, who were present before this Court. The joint compromise memo filed in both the cases would also evidence the same. Supporting affidavit filed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 by the defacto complainant would also confirm the compromise had in between the parties and accordingly, the compromise memo filed by both the parties is recorded. In view of the recording of the compromise, the dispute in between the parties need not be pursued in the form of trial in C.C.No.204 of 2010, even though, the provisions are non compoundable, I can take shelter of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 858 in between Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, categorically mentioned as follows: "Consequent upon the compromise of the suit and having regard to the contents of Clause 11 of the consent terms, which read that neither party had any claim against the other and parties were withdrawing all allegations and counter-allegations made against each other, the appellant herein filed an application for discharge from the criminal complaint, in respect of which charge sheet had been filed by CBI. The said application was rejected by the court which came to be challenged by the appellant before the High Court. The High Court rejected the appellant's prayer for discharge from the criminal cases. Before the Supreme Court, it was urged by the respondents that all the ingredients of the offences committed under Sections 468 and 471 as also Section 420 I.P.C. were made out in the charge-sheet, and hence, even if the matter was compromised between the parties, the criminal proceedings could not be compounded on that basis since the offences involved also included non-compoundable offences. The appellant contended that B.S.Joshi case, (2003) 4 SCC 675, squarely covered the facts of the instant case since in exercise of inherent powers, the Supreme Court could transcend the limitation imposed under section 320 Cr.P.C. and pass orders quashing criminal proceedings or F.I.R. or complaint even where non-compoundable offences were involved. On an overall view of the facts and keeping in mind the decision in B.S.Joshi case, (2003) 4 SCC 675, and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also Clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise." 9.The above said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. If for any reasons, the case proceedings in C.C.No.204 of 2010 is ordered to be proceeded, it would certainly be amounting to an empty formality and nothing could be achieved, except the acquittal of the accused persons at the end of the trial. Therefore, I have no hesitation to pass an order of quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.204 of 2010 on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 the file of the learned judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai. 10.Accordingly, these petitions are ordered and the proceedings in C.C.No.204 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners/A2,3 and 5, including A1, who has not joined in this petition and A4, who was already dead. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai District. 2.The Inspector of Police (Crime), Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai, Madurai District. 3.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.D.Sivaraman, Advocate, Sr.No.45550 arul GH : 24.01.2012 : 4p/6c Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3767 and 17021 of 2011 22.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/