Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3367 (MAD)

G. Babu v. Sub Inspector of Police Chennai

2013-09-18

P.DEVADASS

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The appellants/accused 1 to 3 have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the Criminal proceedings in Crl.A.No.41 of 2013 now pending before the learned principal sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. 2. 3rd respondent Meena Lodged a complaint as against six persons. Based on her complaint, a case was registered by the police. Final report was filed after investigation. The accused persons were prosecuted in C.C.No.246 of 2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee for offences under Sections 147, 148, 326, 324, 294-b and 506 (ii) IPC. On 7.5.2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioners, namely, A1 to A3 and other accused were acquitted. A1 to A3 were sentenced to one year S.I. under Section 326 IPC and fined Rs.1,000/- with default sentence. Fine amount was paid. As against the conviction and Sentences, they have appealed in Crl.A.No.41 of 2013. It is pending before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. Pending consideration of the appeal, their sentences were suspended. 3. While the appeal was pending, a new turn has taken place. Meena and the petitioners are close relatives. They wanted peace. They have entered into a compromise. Now, Meena is not interested in the result of the Criminal appeal. 4. The offence under Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable. Now, parties have want compromised the matter. But, the learned Principal Sessions Judge cannot permit compounding of the offences in respect of Section 320 (a) Cr.P.C. now to meet this situation, they have involved the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. As per the latest three-Judge Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in GIAN SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [2012 (12) L.W. (Crl.) 797], in fit case, such as the near relations have compromised the matter and the offences alleged is also not as against the society at large, an exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court can quash the criminal proceedings. 6. The very defacto complainant and the accused wants to have the cordiality restored. In such ircumstances, this is an appropriate case that this Court shall exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. 6. The very defacto complainant and the accused wants to have the cordiality restored. In such ircumstances, this is an appropriate case that this Court shall exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. In the circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded in C.C.No.246 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee are quashed and consequently, Crl.A.No.41 of 2013 pending before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur is disposed of accordingly. The bail bonds, if any executed, are canceled. The fine amount shall be paid to the defacto complainant as compensation. 8. With these directions, this criminal original petition is disposed of.