1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition(MD)No.15390 of 2011 1.N.Balaji 2.N.Leelavathi 3.V.Rajeswari ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1,3,4 Vs. 1.The state rep. through the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (South) Madurai, (Cr. No. 25/04) 2.V.Prasanna @ Chitra ... Respondents/Respondents. Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.15 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate NO.1, Madurai and quash the same and pas such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. For Petitioners :: Mr.C.S.Ravichandran For Respondent NO.1:: Mr.P.Kandasamy, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) : V. Prasanna @ Chitra 2nd Respondent appeared in person. O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.15 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate NO.1, Madurai and quash the same. 2.Heard both sides. 3.Both the petitioners and the defacto complainant/second respondent are present. A memorandum of compromise has been filed. Both the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant admitted that their disputes have been compromised. 4. There is no impediment for this Court to record the same. The offences which are stated to have been committed by the petitioners are under Sections 498(A), 406 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w Section 34 of IPC. All these are compoundable in nature. I have no hesitation to quash the same. 5. In the compromise memo, it is stated that the second respondent/defacto complainant is willing to withdraw the complaint given by her and not to pursue the case filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.1, Madurai in C.C. NO. 15 of 2006 under Sections 498(A), 406 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w Section 34 of IPC. 6. In the said circumstances, if the case is pursued, it would be an empty formality and nothing would be achieved, and it would be also a futile exercise. The Apex Court would also in Nikil Merchant vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2008(3) SCC (Cri) 858, 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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. 7. 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 parties 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. 8.Therefore, I find that since the dispute in between the petitioners and the second respondent/ defacto complainant was settled amicably, there is no reason for continuing the charge sheet filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai, in C.C. NO.15 of 2006. Accordingly, the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate NO.1, Madurai in CC No.15 of 2006 are entirely quashed. 9.With the aforesaid observations, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( ACCOUNTS ) /TRUE COPY/ ses ASST REGISTRAR To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai. 2.The Addl Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (South) Madurai 1CC TO MR. C.S. RAVICHANDRAN, ADVOCATE,S R: 45349: DM::2012:JANUARY::10:: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15390 of 2011 20.12.2011 2P:5C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/