1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:30.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.OP(MD)No.15046 of 2011 And MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 1.Rajesh Kannan 2.Paulsamy 3.Selvam :Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 -Vs- 1.The State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Watrap Police Station,Virudhunagar District.:Respondent/Complainant 2.Malliga :Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to Crime No. 157 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.C.T.Perumal For 1st Respondent: Mr.Kandasamy, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For 2nd Respondent: M/s.C.Annakkodi ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners have been arrayed as A1 to A3 and they have been implicated for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 355, 376 of I.P.C., and they have come forward with this Petition seeking for the relief of quashing the FIR in Crime No. 157 of 2011 on the file fo the first respondent. 2.Heard Mr.C.T.Perumal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also Mr.Mr.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent and M/s.C.Annakkodi, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 3.The reasons attributed for quashing the FIR is that both the first accused and the second respondent/de-facto complainant have married and they became husband and wife and the offence is said to have been committed at an early stage before the marriage and the offence under Section 376 of IPC need not be gone into since the de-facto complainant herself has come forward and state that there was no force when the offence was said to have been committed. 4.However, I have perused the marriage certificate produced along with typed set. The first petitioner as well as the de-facto complainant/second respondent are present before this Court and stated that they are living happily as husband and wife. 5.In view of the subsequent development of circumstances, the offence under Section 376 of IPC could not be pursued. 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 Honourable 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, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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." 6.Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the FIR. However, in my considered opinion even the offence said to have been committed against the de-facto complainant is serious, such offence can not be found during the investigation because of the compromise entered into between the parties Therefore, I find that there is no need for pursuing the complaint and if it is continued, it would be a futile exercise. 7.Hence, the Proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No 157 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent, is hereby quashed and this Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Inspector of Police, Watrap Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Addl Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court,Madurai vsg Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15046 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 RP/10.01.2012/2P/3C.30.11.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/