1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.636 of 2011 1. S.Viswanathan 2. P.Selvaraj 3. Dhanalakshmi 4. S.Vinoth ...Petitioner / Accused Nos. 1 to 4 -Vs- 1. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (South) Madurai (Cr.No.13 of 2010) 2. V.Nithya ...Respondents / Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No. 275 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.C.Jeganathan For 1st Respondent : Mrs. Devasena Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For 2nd Respondent: Mr.N.Sathish Kumar ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have been arrayed as A1 to A4 and they have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings pending in C.C.No. 275 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, against them for the alleged offence under Sections 498(A) and 406 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2.Heard Mr.C.Jeganathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs. Devasena, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 appearing for the first respondent and Mr.N.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the matter has been amicably settled in between the parties viz., petitioners and the second respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the parties viz., the petitioners and the second respondent signed and filed the Memo of Compromise before this Court today. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings pending in C.C.No.275 of 2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai, for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A) and 406 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act may be ordered to have been quashed. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in her argument that the matter was amicably settled between the parties viz., the petitioners and the second respondent and both the parties have signed and filed the Memo of Compromise before this Court and the offences are compoundable nature and therefore, the Court may pass suitable orders. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit in his argument that the matter was amicably settled between the parties viz., the petitioners and the second respondent and both the parties signed and filed the Memo of Compromise before this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent that both the parties viz., the first accused as well as the second respondent are also before Court today, and 2nd respondent has no objection to quash the proceedings. 6.The first petitioner and the second respondent present before this Court and filed a compromise memo and they also admitted the compromise. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between them, the second respondent is not interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings pending against the petition for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 406 of IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, in C.C.No. 275 of 2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. In pursuance to the compromise recorded in between the parties, the proceedings pending in C.C.No. 275 of 2010, which was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, on the foot of the charge sheet filed in Crime No. 13 of 2010 on the file of the first respondent police under Sections 498(A) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is not at all required to be continued. If it is permitted to continue in between the parties, it would be nothing, but the consumption of the precious judicial time. Therefore, this Court has no impediment to quash the said proceedings. 8. Accordingly, the case pending in C.C.No. 275 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, is hereby quashed and this Petition is thus ordered. (*) Xerox Copy of the memo of Compromise is enclosed Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai. 2. -Do-Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 3. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station (South) Madurai 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai. +1cc to Mr.P.Mahendrapandi, Advocate SR.No.2226 vsg akm/17.02.10 /3p-6c/ Crl.O.P.(MD).No.636 of 2011 20.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/