Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3036 (MAD)

D. Nandha Kumar v. State rep by The Inspector of Police Coimbatore

2013-08-23

M.JAICHANDREN

body2013
Judgment : 1. This petition has been filed seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. not known of 2013, on the file of the respondent police. 2. This criminal original petition was referred for mediation to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court of Madras, by the order of this Court, dated 25.3.2013. 3. A communication, dated 19.8.2013, of the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court of Madras, enclosing a copy of its Mediation Report, dated 18.7.2013, has been received, and in the said Mediation Report, it is stated as follows:- "Petitioners and the Defacto Complainant appeared before the Centre along with their Counsel. Parties arrived at a settlement as per the terms in the Mediation Agreement enclosed. Hence the matter is sent back to the Hon’ble Court. " 4. As the parties have arrived at a settlement in terms of the Mediation Agreement, dated 18.7.2013, this petition is listed for passing orders in terms of the said Mediation Agreement. 5. The Mediation Agreement, dated 18.7.2013, signed by the parties and the counsel appearing for the petitioners, reads as follows:- "Both sides, out of their own volition and without any pressure or coercion from any side have agreed as follows: 1. As agreed by the 1st petitioner / D.Nandha Kumar and Gunasundari / Defacto Complainant, 1st petitioner can visit the Children once in a month particularly on Sundays at Kableeswarar Temple, Mylapore at 09.30 a.m. and 07.30 p.m. with prior intimation to the father of the Defacto Complainant in two days advance. 2. 1st petitioner and the Defacto Complainant agreed to file Mutual Consent for Divorce Petition before the Jurisdictional Court. 3. Defacto Complainant agreed not to have any further maintenance and claims against the petitioners. 4. In respect of 30 Sovereign Jewels, the petitioners settled as follows: (i) The 1st Petitioner already gave 64.370 Grams of Sovereign to the Defacto Complainant at Coimbatore on 26.04.2013. (ii) Today i.e., 18.07.2013 the 1st petitioner given a Gold Bracelet for 15.600 grams of gold to the Defacto Complainant. (iii) Today i.e., 18.07.2013 the 1st Petitioner gave a cheque bearing No.043914 for a sum of Rs.1,81,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty One Thousand only) dated 18.07.2013 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Coimbatore Main Branch for 116.500 grams of gold to the Defacto Complainant, subject to the realization of the Cheque. (iii) Today i.e., 18.07.2013 the 1st Petitioner gave a cheque bearing No.043914 for a sum of Rs.1,81,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty One Thousand only) dated 18.07.2013 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Coimbatore Main Branch for 116.500 grams of gold to the Defacto Complainant, subject to the realization of the Cheque. (iv) The 1st petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,11,500/-(Rupees One Lakh Eleven thousand five hundred only) by cash to the Defacto Complainant for 44 grams of gold. Therefore the entire 30 sovereign of jewels settled as stated above. 5. The Defacto Complainant agreed to co-operate for quashing the Complaint pending before the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore. 6. Both the Petitioners and the Defacto Complainant should not intervene in their own accord." 6. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, which is recorded under the Mediation Agreement, dated 18.7.2013, and in terms of the Mediation Report, dated 18.7.2013, before the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court of Madras, this petition is disposed of, recording the terms of the Mediation Agreement, dated 18.7.2013. The terms of the Mediation Agreement, dated 18.7.2013 and the Mediation Report, dated 18.7.2013, of the Mediation Centre, shall form part of the order.