JENEFA PAUL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner herein is the defacto complainant, 2nd petitioner is her husband and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are mother and brother respectively of petitioner No,2. THE first petitioner married the 2nd petitioner 27.01.1997 and from the wedlock, they got two children. Alleging dowry harassment, the first petitioner lodged a complaint as against petitioner Nos.2 and 4 and the same was taken on file by the respondent police as Crime No.1 of 2008 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On conclusion of the investigation, final report came to be filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, and the case was taken on file as C.C. No.15078 of 2008. Now, the present petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the aforesaid proceedings pending before the trial court on the ground that both parties arrived at a compromise to peacefully join the matrimonial home.

(2.) A separate memo of compromise, dated 16th February, 2009, signed by the husband and wife, has been filed along with the petition, and it is stated therein that compromise has been effected between both the parties that the first petitioner has joined the matrimonial home with the 2nd petitioner subsequent to mediation and conciliation and that it has also been decided to withdraw the civil and criminal cases pending before other forums.

(3.) IT is of much relevance to refer to the case law reported in 2003 (3) CTC 54 (Joshi, B.S. v. State of Haryana), wherein, with reference to the power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR in like cases, the Honourable Apex Court has observed thus:-