1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15979 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 1.Pounraj 2.Veeranan 3.Panchammal 4.Saravanakumar ...Petitioners -Vs- 1.The State rep. By The Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tallakulam, Madurai District Crime No.16 of 2011 2.Santhosini ...Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records, the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.419 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Muniyandi For Respondents : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 R2 - appeared in person[Santhosini] O R D E R This petition has been filed to call for the records, the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.419 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and quash the same. 2. Heard Mr.S.Muniyandi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent. 3.The petitioners/A1 to 4 and the second respondent/defacto complainant are present and they have admitted the compromise entered into between them. Since both the parties have agreed the compromise reached in between them, this Court is inclined to record the compromise. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant would also submit before the Court that she would withdraw the complaint. In the said circumstances, if the case is pursued, it would be an empty formality and nothing would be achieved, it would be also a futile exercise. The Apex Court would also in a decision reported in 2008(3) SCC 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." Therefore, I have no hesitation to record the compromise and to quash the F.I.R. in crime No.16 of 2011 registered on the basis of the complaint given by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and the charge sheet and the proceedings in pursuance of the said charge sheet in C.C.No.419 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai is hereby quashed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the F.I.R. in crime No.16 of 2011 registered on the basis of the complaint given by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and the charge sheet filed thereon and the proceedings in pursuance of the said charge sheet in C.C.No.419 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai are hereby quashed as against the petitioners herein. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. arul Sd/- Deputy Registrar[Accounts] /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tallakulam, Madurai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai. +1 cc to Mr.S.Muniyandi, Advocate SR.No.43809. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15979 of 2011 Dated:13.12.2011 3P/5C RPB 30.01.2012 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/