Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2165 (MAD)

K. P. Raghuram v. State, represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women

2017-07-24

S.S.SUNDAR

body2017
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.17 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent Police 2. Heard the submissions of Mr.R.Narayanan, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.K.Anbarasan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent/State and Mr.P.Dharmaraj, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court including the joint compromise memo filed by both the parties. 3. The first Petitioner is the husband of the second respondent and their marriage was performed on 6.7.2016 at Koodal Alagar Perumal Temple, Madurai. Due to difference of opinion, they are living separately. However, the first Petitioner and second respondent filed a Petition in H.M.O.P.No.535 of 2017, on the file of Family Court, Madurai, seeking consent divorce. Earlier, there was a complaint against the second respondent and the case was registered against her. Since the parties have entered into an amicable settlement out side the Court, they have signed the compromise memo stating that the criminal case need not be proceeded with. The second respondent has specifically agreed that she has no claim. She has also expressed in unequivocal terms that she has no objection to quash the FIR in Crime No.17 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent-Police. The parties appear before this Court today and submitted that they have signed the compromise memo on their free will and volition. The identity of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced before this Court by the parties concerned. The identity of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the first respondent/Police. 4. Having regard to the specific terms in the joint compromise memo, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending. Hence, in the circumstances stated above, this Court is inclined to quash the FIR registered against the Petitioners on the basis of the Joint Compromise Memo, dated 14.7.2017 filed by both the parties. 5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No. 17 of 2017, pending on the file of the respondent No.1/Police is quashed. The Joint compromise memo, dated 14.07.2017 shall form part and parcel of this order.