Kumar and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Kumar and ors. vs State and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 11, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/836563

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/836563
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: R. Regupathi, J.
Decided On: Dec 11, 2006
Case Number: Crl. O.P. No. 45245 of 2003 and Crl. M.P. No. 627 of 2006
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Sections 5A & 4; [P. Sathasivam, M.E.N. Patrudu & S. Manikumar, JJ] Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules, Rule 4 Time limit for filing objections Held, Time limit prescribed under Section 5-A for filing objections cannot be further enlarged by Form B Notice issued und...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Hindu Marriage Act - Sections 13B; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 498A; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 320

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kumar and ors.

Advocate A.L. Gandhimathi, Adv.

Respondent

State and anr.

Advocate P. Kumaresan, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.B. Gopalan, Adv. for Respondent No. 2

Legal References

Acts: Hindu Marriage Act - Sections 13B; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 498A; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 320
Reported In: 1(2007)DMC549

Excerpt

- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. sections 5a & 4; [p. sathasivam, m.e.n. patrudu & s. manikumar, jj] land acquisition (tamil nadu) rules, rule 4 time limit for filing objections held, time limit prescribed under section 5-a for filing objections cannot be further enlarged by form b notice issued under rule 4. authorities were directed to modify form b. sections 5a (2); [ hearing of objectors - held, it is mandatory and making a further enquiry by the collector is discretionary. if the objectors have not filed any objection with8in 30 days but come forward with oral objection, even then, the collector must hear. the hearing is mandatory.....45245 of 2003 and the same was taken on file and notice has been issued to the respondent. in such circumstances, the present petition has been filed under section 320, cr.p.c. by both the parties. it has been stated that the dispute between the de facto complainant and the accused has been settled. the complainant has received a sum of rs. 3,50,000 as future maintenance and also has submitted that the streedhana articles including the jewels have been received. the parties have agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and such petition has also been filed under section 13b of hindu marriage act. initially a divorce petition was filed by the first petitioner and it was allowed. aggrieved against a cma has been filed and it is pending before this hon'ble court. pending cma, a new petition has been filed to dissolve the marriage by consent. in such circumstances, the first and second petitioners were present in court. the de facto complainant is also present. i have enquired with the de facto complainant, who confirms the receipt of future maintenance and streedhana properties and further submitted that she is willing to compromise the dispute.3. i have heard the learned additional public prosecutor in this regard and i have perused the materials available on record.4. as the dispute between the de facto complainant and the accused has been settled, i find that there may not be any use in continuing the prosecution pending in c.c. no. 136 of 2002 on the file of the learned judicial magistrate, chengalpattu. the offence is under section 498a, ipc, which is non compoundable. however, the supreme court has held that by invoking inherent powers of this hon'ble court and if the parties have compromised the dispute, the offence may be allowed to be compounded. in such circumstances, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence is allowed to be compounded and the accused are acquitted. accordingly, the proceedings pending in c.c. no. 136 of 2002.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

R. Regupathi, J.

1. The petitioners are accused for an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC originally on the file of the first respondent police and subsequently on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Chennai. On conclusion of the investigation, final report has been filed and it is pending in C.C. No. 135 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Chengalpattu.

2. The petitioners have filed a petition to quash the proceedings in Crl.O.P. No. 45245 of 2003 and the same was taken on file and notice has been issued to the respondent. In such circumstances, the present petition has been filed under Section 320, Cr.P.C. by both the parties. It has been stated that the dispute between the de facto complainant and the accused has been settled. The complainant has received a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 as future maintenance and also has submitted that the streedhana articles including the jewels have been received. The parties have agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and such petition has also been filed under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act. Initially a divorce petition was filed by the first petitioner and it was allowed. Aggrieved against a CMA has been filed and it is pending before this Hon'ble Court. Pending CMA, a new petition has been filed to dissolve the marriage by consent. In such circumstances, the first and second petitioners were present in Court. The de facto complainant is also present. I have enquired with the de facto complainant, who confirms the receipt of future maintenance and streedhana properties and further submitted that she is willing to compromise the dispute.

3. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in this regard and I have perused the materials available on record.

4. As the dispute between the de facto complainant and the accused has been settled, I find that there may not be any use in continuing the prosecution pending in C.C. No. 136 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu. The offence is under Section 498A, IPC, which is non compoundable. However, the Supreme Court has held that by invoking inherent powers of this Hon'ble Court and if the parties have compromised the dispute, the offence may be allowed to be compounded. In such circumstances, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence is allowed to be compounded and the accused are acquitted. Accordingly, the proceedings pending in C.C. No. 136 of 2002 is quashed. The petition is ordered accordingly, Consequently, connected Crl.M.P. No. 627 of 2006 is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2006 Same Parties Kumar and ors. vs State and anr. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R. Regupathi, J. Acts & Sections Hindu Marriage Act - Sections 13B; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1...

Criminal