High Court Madras High Court

Ramesh Ramamurthy vs State on 26 November, 2007

Madras High Court
Ramesh Ramamurthy vs State on 26 November, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                              
                     DATED : 26.11.2007
                              
                            CORAM
                              
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM
                              
         CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.33359 of 2007



                              
1.   Ramesh Ramamurthy

2.   M.S. Ramamurthy

3.   Bhuvaneswari Ramamurthy

4.   Saikumar Ramamurthy     		...Petitioners


            Vs.


1.   State
     Inspector of Police
     All Women Police Station
     Trichirapalli.

2.   Subha            			...Respondents




      Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482  of

Cr.P.C.  praying to call for the records in C.C.No.10668  of

2005   pending   on  the  file  of  the  Chief  Metropolitan

Magistrate, Egmore and quash the same.




          For Petitioners    : M/s. K. Kannan

          For  R1            : Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, G.A.(Crl.Side)

          For R2             : M/s. Muthupandian





                          O R D E R

The above criminal original petition has been

filed to quash the complaint in C.C.No.10668 of 2005 pending

on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

2. During the pendency of the above case, as seen

from the affidavit filed by the second respondent, who is

the defacto complainant that the defacto complainant and the

first petitioner in the criminal original petition, who is

the husband of the defacto complainant had arrived at an

amicable settlement before the Hon’ble Division Bench of

this Court on 27.06.2007. Pursuant to the said settlement

arrived at, a decree for divorce has been granted by this

Hon’ble High Court in C.M.A.No. 3054 of 2006 on 27.06.2007.

In the affidavit, the defacto complainant has stated that

she would not pursue the criminal case in future.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first

respondent and the learned counsel for the second

respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon a

decision in B.S. JOSHI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARIYANA AND

ANOTHER reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1386 and in RUCHI

AGARWAL VS. AMIT KUMAR AGARWAL reported in 2005(3) SCC 299,

submitted that in the matrimonial matter, if the husband and

wife amicably settled the dispute, this Court can invoke the

power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. so as to enable the

parties to live in peace.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for

the first respondent fairly submits that the complaint in

C.C.No.10668 of 2005 may be quashed by relying upon the

aforesaid Apex Court decisions.

6. In the decision reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court

1386 (B.S. JOSHI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARIYANA AND

ANOTHER), in paragraphs 12, 14 and 15, the Apex Court has

observed as follows:

” 12. The special features in such

matrimonial matters are evident. It

becomes the duty of the Court to encourage

genuine settlements of matrimonial

disputes.

13. …….. ………… ………

14. There is no doubt that the object

of introducing Chapter XX-A containing

Section 498-A in the Indian penal code was

to prevent the torture to a woman by her

husband or by relatives of her husband.

Section 498-A was added with a view to

punishing a husband and his relatives who

harass or torture the wife to coerce her

or her relatives to satisfy unlawful

demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view

would be counter productive and would get

against interests of women and against the

object for which this provision was added.

There is every likelihood that non-

exercise of inherent power to quash the

proceedings to meet the ends of justice

would prevent women from setting earlier.

That is not the object of Chapter XXA of

Indian Penal Code.

15. In view of the above discussion,

we hold that the High Court in exercise of

its inherent powers can quash criminal

proceedings or FIR or complaint and

Section 320 of the Code does not limit or

affect the powers under Section 482 of the

Code.”

7. In RUCHI AGARWAL VS. AMIT KUMAR AGARWAL reported in

2005(3) SCC 299, in paragraphs 7, 8 and 8, the Apex Court

has observed as follows:

” 7. It is based on the said compromise

the appellant obtained a divorce as

desired by her under Section 13-B of the

Hindu Marriage Act and in partial

compliance with the terms of the

compromise she withdrew the criminal case

filed under Section 125 of the Criminal

Procedure Code but for reasons better

known to her she did not withdraw that

complaint from which this appeal arises.

That apart after the order of the High

Court quashing the said complaint on the

ground of territorial jurisdiction, she

has chosen to file this appeal. It is in

this background, we will have to

appreciate the merits of this appeal.

8. ……….. ……………

………………. ………….

…………..

…………… …………………

……………… ………….

………………..

Therefore, we are of the opinion that the

appellant having received the relief she

wanted without contest on the basis of the

terms of the compromise, we cannot now

accept the argument of the learned counsel

for the appellant. In our opinion, the

conduct of the appellant indicates that

the criminal complaint from which this

appeal arises was filed by the wife only

to harass the respondents.

9. In view of the abovesaid

subsequent events and the conduct of the

appellant, it would be an abuse of the

process of the Court if the criminal

proceedings from which this appeal arises

is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are

of the considered opinion to do complete

justice, we should while dismissing this

appeal also quash the proceedings arising

from criminal case Cr.No.224 of 2003

registered in Police Station Bilaspur

(District Rampur) filed under Sections 498-

A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against

the respondents herein.”

8. A perusal of the said observations of the Apex Court

makes it abundantly clear that if the parties to the

matrimonial dispute amicably settle the dispute, then it

becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine

settlements of matrimonial disputes and the High Court in

exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal

proceedings or FIR or complaint.

9. In view of the facts stated above and in the light

of the Apex Court decisions, the criminal original petition

is allowed and C.C.No.10668 of 2005 pending on the file of

the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, is quashed.

mra

To

1. The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Trichirapalli.

2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court
Madras 104.