Dharmar and Others Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, and Another

Dharmar and Others vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Jun 20, 2016

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1190407

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1190407
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: The Honourable Dr. Justice S. Vimala
Decided On: Jun 20, 2016
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos. 9143 & 9144 of 2016
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 TNPPDL Act Section 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 3(i) Quashing of FIR Petitioner sought for quashing FIR for offence registered under Section 294(b) and 506(ii) of the IPC and Section 3(i) of TNPPDL Act - Court Held From compromise, it can safely infer t...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dharmar and Others

Respondent

State represented by The Inspector of Police, and Another

Excerpt

code of criminal procedure, 1973 section 482 tnppdl act section 294(b) and 506(ii) ipc and section 3(i) quashing of fir petitioner sought for quashing fir for offence registered under section 294(b) and 506(ii) of the ipc and section 3(i) of tnppdl act - court held from compromise, it can safely infer that chances of defacto complainant deposing against petitioners is less and therefore chance of conviction of accused is bleak considering nature of relationship between parties, nature of offences alleged settlement arrived at and ultimate result of prosecution, quashing of fir will be in ends of justice entire proceedings quashed petitions allowed. (para, 4.1, 5, 6) cases referred: 1. b.s.joshi vs. state of haryana, reported in (2003) 4 scc 675). .....amount to abuse of the process of the court. 2. acase in crime no.113 of 2016 has been registered under sections 109 and 354 ipc and section 3 of tnppdl act by the 1st respondent against the petitioners in crl.o.p.(md)9143/2016. the very same defacto complainant lodged another complaint, which resulted in registration of the case in crime no.85 of 2016 under sections 294(b) and 506(ii) ipc and section 3(i) of tnppdl act against the petitioner in crl.o.p.(md)9144/2016 3. when these matters are taken up for hearing, the petitioners and the second respondent, appeared in person and their identifications were also verified by this court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned government advocate (crl.side) through the respondent police. 4. learned counsel appearing for the parties filed a joint memo of compromise dated 09.06.2016, duly stating that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, under which the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above cases in crime nos.113 and 85 of 2016 pending on the file of the first respondent respectively. 4.1. from the compromise, this court can safely infer that the chances of the defacto complainant deposing against the petitioners is less and therefore, the chance of conviction of the accused is bleak. 5. the hon'ble supreme court in the case of b.s.joshi vs. state of haryana, reported in (2003) 4 scc 675 held that the high court can quash the proceedings under section 482 cr.p.c., if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so requires, i.e. there would be almost no chance of conviction. thus, b.s.joshi s case provided a creative solution for quashing of proceedings under section 482 cr.p.c. 6. therefore, considering, a) the nature of relationship between the parties, b) nature of offences alleged c) the settlement arrived at and d) the ultimate result of the prosecution, this court is of the view that quashing of the fir will be in the ends of justice and.....

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD) 9143/2016: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records of pending FIR before the respondent police in Crime No.113 of 2016 dated 08.05.2016 for the offence under Sections 109 and 354 IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act and to quash the same.

Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD) 9144/2016: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records of pending FIR before the respondent police in Crime No.85/2016 dated 29.03.2016 for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and 3(i) of TNPPDL Act and to quash the same.)

Common Order

1. Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

2. Acase in Crime No.113 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 109 and 354 IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act by the 1^st respondent against the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)9143/2016. The very same defacto complainant lodged another complaint, which resulted in registration of the case in Crime No.85 of 2016 under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 3(i) of TNPPDL Act against the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)9144/2016

3. When these matters are taken up for hearing, the petitioners and the second respondent, appeared in person and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent police.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties filed a joint memo of compromise dated 09.06.2016, duly stating that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, under which the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above cases in Crime Nos.113 and 85 of 2016 pending on the file of the first respondent respectively.

4.1. From the compromise, this Court can safely infer that the chances of the defacto complainant deposing against the petitioners is less and therefore, the chance of conviction of the accused is bleak.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 held that the High Court can quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so requires, i.e. there would be almost no chance of conviction. Thus, B.S.Joshi s case provided a creative solution for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Therefore, considering, a) the nature of relationship between the parties, b) nature of offences alleged c) the settlement arrived at and d) the ultimate result of the prosecution, this Court is of the view that quashing of the FIR will be in the ends of justice and accordingly, the same is ordered to be quashed.

7. In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime Nos.113 of 2016 08.05.2016 and 85 of 2016 dated 29.03.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police in respect of the petitioners are hereby quashed.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Dharmar and Others vs State represented by The Inspector of P... Same Subject Criminal Same Judge The Honourable Dr. Justice S. Vimala

Criminal