1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition(MD)No.15964 of 2011 1.K.Nithyanandh 2.Karuppiah 3.Valli 4.Jothi ... Petitioners/Respondents Vs. Ajithamalar ... Respondent/Applicant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in main application in Crl.M.P.No.78 of 2008 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, along with an interim application in Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2008 under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi against the petitioners/ respondents 1 to 4. For Petitioners :: Mr.A.Uthayakumar For Respondent :: Ajithamalar, party-in-person O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in main application in Crl.M.P.No.78 of 2008 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, along with an interim application in Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2008 under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi against the petitioners/ respondents 1 to 4. 2.Heard Mr.A.Uthayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3.Both the first petitioner/husband and the de facto complainant/respondent are present. A memorandum of compromise has been filed. Both the first petitioner and the respondent/de facto complainant admitted that their disputes have been compromised and the differences have been settled at the intervention of elders of both the families and they are decided to live separately. 4.The affidavit of the de facto complainant has been filed and she has also admitted that she has executed the said affidavit. In the said affidavit, she is willing to withdraw the complaint given by her and not to pursue the case filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi in Crl.M.P.No.78 of 2008, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act along with an interim application in Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2008 under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Those offences are no doubt compoundable in nature. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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 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." 5.Therefore, I find that since the dispute in between the first petitioner/husband and the respondent/de facto complainant have been settled amicably, there is no reason for continuing the charge sheet filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi in Crl.M.P.78 of 2008. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the charge-sheet filed in Crl.M.P.No.78 and the interim application in Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2008 against the first petitioner/accused as well as the other petitioners are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi in Crl.M.P.Nos.78 and 79 of 2008 are entirely quashed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6.With the aforesaid observations, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +3CCS M/S.A.UTHAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE SR : 42729 Vs SR : 28.12.2011 : 3p/6c Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15964 of 2011 07.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/