1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:12.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.91 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 1. Sathishkumar 2. Thirukumaran 3. Palanichamy ... Petitioners Vs. 1. The State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomatchikulam Sub-Division, Madurai District. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Karuppaiyoorani Police Station, Madurai District. 3. Kottai Selvam ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the petitioners in S.C.No.91 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional District Sessions Court (PCR Court) Madurai in P.R.C.No.19 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madruai in Crime No.605 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Udhayakumar For Respondents : Mrs.Devasena Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for R.1 and R.2 For R.3 :Mr.P.P.Ilaiyarasu O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the petitioners in S.C.No.91 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional District Sessions Court (PCR Court) Madurai in P.R.C.No.19 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madruai in Crime No.605 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same. 2. Heard Mr.R.Udhayakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.Devasena, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the State and Mr.P.P.Ilaiyarasu, learned Counsel for the third respondent. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioners 1 to 3 are ranked as A.1 to A.3 in S.C.No.91 of 2009, pending on the file of the III Additional District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Sessions Court (PCR Court) Madurai and they were charged under Sections 341, 307 I.P.C. and 3(1)(ii) SC/ST PA Act and the charges were framed and the case is posted for trial on the file of the said Court. He would further submit that in his argument that the petitioners are innocent persons and the petitioners and the de-facto complainant have amicably settled the disputes in between them outside the Court and therefore, they praying for quashment of the order. He would also further submit that the joint memorandum of compromise has been filed in order to evidence the said compromise cum settlement reached in between the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 and the de-facto complainant/the third respondent. He would also cite a judgment of a Constitutional Bench (three Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court) reported in 2007(4) CTC 769 in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another to the principle that the powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the High Court has no limit and therefore, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioners, even though not attracted under Section 320 Cr.P.C. as compoundable offences, the said offences can be ordered to be quashed, since the matter has been compromised in between the parties. He would further submit in his argument that the proceeding before the trial Court would amount to prolong rendering of justice and the power vested with this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the cases of non-compoundable nature can also be quashed, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, he would request the Court to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.91 of 2009, pending on the file of the III Additional District Sessions Court (PCR Court)Madurai. 4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit in her argument that the offences charged against the petitioners are non- compoundable nature and the offences under Sections 3(1)(ii)SC/ST PA Act is attracted under the social legislation and if those offences are permitted to be quashed, it would defeat the object of the enactment and the offences covered under the prevention of SC/ST PA Act. Therefore, she would request the Court that the petition filed by the petitioners may not be ordered. 5. The learned Counsel for the third respondent/the de-facto complainant would submit that the dispute in between the petitioners and the third respondent had been compromised in between them and nothing is to be pursued in the form of trial pending before the said Court in S.C.No.91 of 2009 and the third respondent has no objection in quashment of the proceedings pending in S.C.No.91 of 2009 initiated on the complaint given by him in Cr.No.604 of 2007, on the file of the Karuppaiyoorani Police Station. 6. I have given anxious considerations to the arguments advanced by either side. The joint memorandum of compromise produced by the petitioners and the third respondent is perused. The petitioners 1 to 3 and the third respondent are present in Court and they admit the joint memorandum of compromise reached in between them. Therefore, this Court could see that the matter has been settled in between the parties. However, the case has been taken on file by the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai in S.C.No.91 of 2009 on the foot of the committal order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.II in P.R.C.No.19 of 2008, based upon the charge sheet filed in Cr.No.605 of 2007 and the said case in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 S.C.No.91 of 2009 has been transmitted to the file of the III Additional District Sessions Court (PCR Court) Madurai for disposal in accordance with law. The said proceeding is a lawful proceeding and it has to be completed in accordance with law. Admittedly, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 are under Sections 341, 307 I.P.C. and 3(1)(ii) of SC/ST PA Act. No doubt Sections 307 I.P.C and 3 (1)(ii) of SC/ST PA Act are not compoundable nature and therefore this Court cannot exercise its discretion to quash the same. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of the Court in respect of the judgment rendered in Larger Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2007(4) CTC 769 in Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and another. The relevant passage that run at paragraph No.25 would be as follows: "25. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. The power under Sections 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised ex- debito justitiae to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extraordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery." 7. On a careful perusal of the said judgment, this Court should exercise the powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with utmost cause and anxiety and in rarest rare cases only. The caution which has been given in the said judgment was extracted in Paragraph Nos.24 and 25 of the said judgment. In the said judgment at paragraph No.24, it has been decided as follows: "24. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 "finest hour of justice". Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation." 8. Even in the said judgment, the offence under Sections 3(1)(ii) of SC/ST PA Act has not been dealt with and the other offences like landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising Section 482 Cr.P.C. powers. The said offences pointed out in the said judgment have not covered the offences mentioned in the social enactment like SC/ST PA Act. Therefore, this petition filed by the petitioners for quashment of S.C.No.91 of 2009, on the file of the learned III Additional District Sessions Judge cannot be quashed. 9. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the third respondent would request the Court that the suitable orders may be given to the Court concerned for taking up the trial of the case and to dispose the same as expeditiously as possible, since the matter has been compromised in between the parties. 10. Considering the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the third respondent, this Court is inclined to issue suitable directions to the trial Court, before which the case is pending. As per the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Sie) that the said Court viz., PCR Court (III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai) fell vacant and the case pending before the said Court have been taken by the in-charge Court viz., I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. This Court also verified through the Registry about the in-charge posting of the cases and that it was also affirmed. Therefore, this Court is inclined to direct the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, who is in-charge for III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Madurai to take up the case in S.C.No.91 of 2009 and to issue witness summons and to complete the trial within an outer period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the parties are directed to co-operate for such compliance to dispose the case within the stipulated time. With the aforesaid directions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. ssl Sd/- Assistant Registrar[CO] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 To 1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. 2. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. 3. 1 & 2 Do-Thro' The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomatchikulam Sub-Division, Madurai District. 5. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Karuppaiyoorani Police Station, Madurai District. 6. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.91 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Dated:12.01.2011 5P/7C RPB 18.01.2011[I.T.] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/