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.15408 of 2011 1.Samuel Jayaraja 2.Ponnudurai 3.Evangeline 4.Gifty 5.Daniel :Petitioners/Accused 1 to 5 -Vs- 1.The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District. (Crime No.9 of 2008) :Respondent/Complainant 2.Belpha Christiana :Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in connection with the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.335 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam and quash the same. For Petitioners :Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For 1stRespondent:Mr.Kandasamy,Government Advocate(Crl.Side) ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners have come forward with this Petition for quashing the charge sheet in C.C.No. 335 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is the husband of the de-facto complainant and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner and the petitioners 4 and 5 are sister and brother of the first petitioner. He would further submit in his argument that the matter was amicably settled between the parties viz., first petitioner and the second respondent/de facto complainant. He would further submit in his argument that both the parties viz., the first petitioner and the second respondent/de-facto complainant have entered a deed of compromise, dated 09.06.2011. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings pending in C.C.No. 335 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam, may be quashed. It is submitted that the petitioners and as well as the counsel for de-facto complainant/ second respondent are present before this Court today. 3.Mr.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit in his argument that if the matter is amicably settled between the parties viz., the first petitioner and the second respondent/the de-facto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 complainant and if both the parties have actually entered a deed of compromise, suitable orders may be passed. 4.The de-facto complainant/the second respondent would also state that in pursuance of the compromise, she is willing to withdraw the complaint. 5.I have carefully considered the submissions made on all the sides and I have also perused the compromise deed entered into between the parties. 6.Both the parties viz., the first petitioner and the second respondent/de-facto complainant were present in person before this Court and stated that the matter was amicably settled in between them. It is seen from the deed of compromise filed by the first petitioner and the second respondent as well as from the statement made before this Court that an amicable settlement was reached in between the petitioner and the de- facto complainant and, the second respondent/de-facto complainant is not interested in pursuing the complaint further. 7.It is seen that the petitioners have been implicated for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A), 406, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPPDL Act. Both the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant/second respondent appeared before this Court and admitted that the matter was amicably settled in between them. The offences under Sections 498(A), 406, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPPDL Act are of compoundable in nature. 8.In view of the deed of compromise signed and filed by the first petitioner and the second respondent/de facto complainant, I am of the considered opinion that the continuance of the case in C.C.No. 335 of 2008 would be an empty formality and it would be certainly a futile exercise in view of compromise. Hence, the charge sheet registered against the petitioners in C.C.No. 335 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam, is hereby quashed. 9.Accordingly, this Petition is allowed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Vsg RP/20.12.2011/2P/3C. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15408 of 2011 30.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/