file 498a, agree ransom, collect money @family court, quash 498a. Public money, police time total wasted. 498a stats up!

file 498a, agree ransom, collect money @family court, quash 498a. Public money, police time total wasted. 498a stats up!

***************************************************************************

Notes
***********************
* Wife files 498a
* Then wife and hubby agree for mutual divorce (will hubby have any choice when his mother, father are roped in)
* Wife collects money …something is mentioned here, but I do NOT know the final / total amount
* wife promptly appears and request quash !!
* WHY do police charge sheet such cases ?? – I do NOT know
* what about the public time and taxpayer money wasted ?
* What about police and court time wasted ?
* How many OTHER real culprits escaped when police were conducting this case ?

************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS WEB SITE FOR MADRAS HIGH COURT
************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 6-2-2009

CORAM

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI

Crl.R.C.No.82 of 2009
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009
and
Crl.O.P.No.2807 of 2009

1.B. Lakshmanan
2.R. Bose
3.Mrs.B. Rajeswari …. Petitioners in both the
revision and the petition

vs

State rep by
The Women Inspector of Police
W-16, All Women Police Station
Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081 … Respondent in both the
revision and the petitions

Revision Petition is filed under Sec.397 and 401 Cr.P.C to set aside the order passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in CMP No.2322 of 2008 in CC No.5797 of 2005 dated 10.12.2008 and discharge the petitioners/accused form the charges in CC No.5797 of 2005 and petition is filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C to compound the offence.

For petitioners : Mr.K. Kannan
For respondent : Mr.R. Muniyapparaj
Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

COMMON ORDER

The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st petitioner and the petitioners have filed the present revision to set aside the order passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in CMP No.2322 of 2008 in CC No.5797 of 2005 dated 10.12.2008 and to discharge them from the charges in CC No.5797 of 2005. They also preferred the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.2807 of 2009 to compound the offence. Inasmuch as both the matters are inter-connected, they are heard together and disposed of by this Common Order.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the complaint given by the wife of the 1st petitioner, a case in C.C.No.5797of 2005 for the offence punishable under Sec.498(A) IPC, was taken up for trial and P.Ws.1 to 3 including the defacto-complainant/wife were examined. In the meantime, based on the petition submitted by the petitioner/wife and the accused/husband, mutually consenting for divorce, the Principal Family Court, Chennai granted decree of dissolution of marriage. The defacto-complainant agreed to receive Rs.30,000/- as permanent alimony with an undertaking to withdraw her case in CC No.5797 of 2005 pending before the learned Magistrate. Only under such circumstances, a petition under Sec.320 Cr.P.C was filed for compounding the offence. The learned Magistrate, by the order impugned, stating that it is a non-compoundable offence and jurisdiction is not vested with him, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved against such order, the present revision has been filed along with a petition in Crl.O.P.No.2807 of 2009, filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C accompanied by the affidavits of the defacto-complainant and her husband/1st petitioner.

3. Both the defacto-complainant and her husband/1st petitioner appeared before the Court today.

4. I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

5. With regard to the issue involved, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi vs State of Haryana (2003 Crl.L.J 2028), wherein it is categorically held that while exercising powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C, the High Court, in matrimonial matters can take into account the compromise entered into between the parties and permit them to compound the non-compoundable offence and also clarified that Sec.320 Cr.P.C would not be a bar in that regard.

6. In the case on hand, pending trial of the case before the learned Magistrate, proceedings were initiated before the Family Court for dissolution of marriage. **Both the parties, by mutual consent, dissolved their marriage. The defacto-complainant received Rs.30,000/- as permanent alimony and agreed to withdraw the case in C.C.No.5797 of 2005 pending before the learned Magistrate**. Only under such circumstances, a petition has been filed, however, it was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

7. **Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings**. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No. CC No.5797 of 2005 pending on the file of learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai is quashed and both the criminal revision and criminal original petition are ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.

sr

To

1. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai

2. The Women Inspector of Police
W-16, All Women Police Station
Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Chennai

***************************************************************************

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s