High Court · 2007

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated :: 11.09.2007CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.PALANIVELUCrl.O.P.No. 27507 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007 1. K.Prakash2. A.R.Krishnan3. Vasantha ... Petitioners v1. STATE by The Inspector of Police AWPS, Neelankarai, Chennai2. M.Kavitha ...RespondentsCriminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC prayingto call for the records pertaining to C.C.No. 1064 of 2005 on the file ofthe Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.For petitioners :Mr. P. Rajesh For respondents : Mr. A.Saravanan GA (Crl.side) for R1 Mr. R.Venkatesh for R2 O R D E RThe first petitioner and the second respondent are husband and wifewhose marriage was held on 27.10.1995 and they lived together in the firstpetitioner's house and due to difference of opinion arose betweenthemselves, they had parted in March, 2002. Thereafter, the secondrespondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners before the firstrespondent in Crime No.30 of 2004 for the offence punishable underSections 498 (A), 506 (i) r/w 406 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry ProhibitionAct. The said complaint was registered in C.C.No.1064 of 2005 on thefile of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur against all the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners for the offence stated supra. The said case is posted to03.10.2007. Before ever the first petitioner filed a petition for divorcein F.C.O.P.No.2245 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Family Court,Chennai. Pending F.C.O.P., both the parties desired to settle thematter between themselves. The terms of settlement between the partiesare as follows:i) That the parties mutually agree to live separately bydissolving the marriage held on 27.10.1995 by filing apetition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-Bof Hindu Marriage Act and necessary miscellaneouspetitions to expedite the matter and/ or any otherpetition to settle the matter amicably and quickly.ii) The I petitioner agrees to withdraw the divorce OPfiled by him in OP No.2245 of 2004 and pending before theII Additional Family Court, Chennai.iii) Both the minor children will remain in the care andcustody of the second respondent. The first petitionergives up his visiting rights towards the children. Thefirst petitioner agrees to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards the maintenance of the minor children as full andfinal settlement. The parties agree not to make anyfurther claim against each other in future. All theirarticles are mutually exchanged.iv. The petitioners agree to file a quash petition inthe Hon'ble High Court of Madras to quash the criminalcase in CC No.1064/2005 now pending before the a JudicialMagistrate Court, Alandur. The II respondent agrees tosay no objection for quashing CC No.1064/2005 in theHon'ble Court of Madras as the offences are non-compoundable. The II respondent/de facto complainantagrees to withdraw any other complaint lodged by heragainst the petitioners with any competent authority orCourt of law.v. The parties have mutually agreed that the filing ofmutual consent divorce petition and the steps to betweentaken for quashing the criminal case in CC No.1064/2005have to be done simultaneously and to cooperate witheach other to settle the issue amicably and quicklywithout affecting both the parties herein in any mannerin any future date. The parties mutually agree to movethe High Court to quash the Criminal Complaint as theoffenes are non-compoundable." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when anycriminal cases pending between the spouses and in case they settle thematter during the pendency of the cases, the settled law paves way toallow the parties to compound non-compoundable offence and in exercise ofinherent power, the High Court may quash the proceedings, to meet the endsof justice. The proposition of law is illuminatingly highlighted in thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and Others v. State ofHaryana and Another, 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 848, in the followinglines : "In the present case, the wife filed an affidavitthat the FIR was registered at her instance due totemperamental differences and implied imputations.There may be many reasons for not supporting theimputations. In such eventuality, there would almostbe no chance of conviction. So, it would not be properto decline to exercise power of quashing on the groundthat it would be permitting the parties to compoundnon-compoundable offences. It would, however, be adifferent matter if the High Court on facts declinesthe prayer for quashing for any valid reasons includinglack of bona fides. Further, in Madhavrao JiwajiraoScindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC692, it was held that while exercising inherent powerof quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Courtto take into consideration any special features whichappear in a particular case to consider whether it isexpedient and in the interest of justice to permit aprosecution to continue. The special features in suchmatrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty ofthe court to encourage genuine settlements ofmatrimonial disputes."7. In the said judgment, Their Lordships have held that if forthe purpose of securing ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomesnecessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of powerof quashing and merely because the said provision enumerates non-compoundable offences, the Court cannot decline to exercise the power ofquashing and that such non-exercise of inherent power would prevent womenfrom settling earlier.8. Guided by the principles formulated in the above said rulingand considering the special features, which are evident, it is to be heldin this case, being a matrimonial one, that the Court is duty bound toencourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. If a sacredceremony of a marriage is affected by some skirmishes, which arise between https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the spouses, and re-union is not possible, and their relationship isirretrievably strained, in case the Court finds that the compromiseentered into between them is a genuine one, there is no stumbling blockfor the Court to entertain the same and in order to avoid future heart-burns between them and take the own course of life without reference tothe other after they got separated, it is just and necessary to recognisethe settlement entered into between them. Declining to entertain such arequest from both the spouses, taking the hyper-technical view andconsidering the proviso under Section 320 Cr.P.C., would be counterproductive.9. Under the circumstances and following the dicta laid down bythe Hon'ble Apex Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, the memo ofcompromise, arrived at between the first petitioner and the secondrespondent, is recorded and accepted and the proceedings in C.C.No. 1064of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur are hereby quashed.10. Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, theconnected Crl.M.P.No. 1 of 2007 is closed. kvsgSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai.2. The Inspector of Police, AWPS, Neelankarai, Chennai.3. Th II Additional Family Court, Chennai4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.104.+2 ccs to Mr.P.Rajesh, Advocate Sr.No.56607.+1 cc to Mr.P.Rajesh, Advocate Sr.No.56731.AKR(CO)DCP/18.9 Crl. O.P.No.27507 of 2007