Shanmuganathan and another vs State and another Sivagami Ammal and 2 others Vs State, etc. and another Krishnamurthy Vs State, etc. and another K. Parameswaran Vs Krishnamurthy and State

Shivappa, J.—In these three criminal original petitions, petitioners are seeking for quashing C.C.I 16 of 1993 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate, Tirumangalam, Madurai District.

The complainant is the last son of Sivagamiammal, the 1st petitioner in Crl.O.P.8500/93. All other petitioners are her sons and daughters of the

1st petitioner in Crl.O.P.8500/93. The complainant filed a suit for partition and the same was decreed awarding l/5th share in the joint family

properties. Since it was an ex-parte decree, steps have been taken by the petitioners for setting aside the same. The same is pending. It is the case

of the complainant that the petitioners herein suppressed in Will executed by the father which was a reference in the release deed and the sale deed

by which he is entitled for l/3rd share and it is his case that all the petitioners connived and tried to conceal the Will to secrete the same with a view

to facilitate the accused 1, 5 and 6 to get a share in the properties of the deceased father, who are not entitled to under the Will. Father died on

1.3.1986. The case of the petitioners is that there is no material against the petitioners for the alleged offences under sections 477 read with 120(b)

I.P.C. it is also the case of the petitioners that either in the release deed or in the sale deed, there is no reference that the complainant is entitled for

l/3rd share. But there is an agreement dated 14.5.1989 which was written in the handwriting of the complainant, and it was agreed to divide into

six portions and to take the respective shares and that the so-called concealment of the Will is a new story put-up by the complainant to harass the

petitioner and others.

Sivagamiammal who is the 1st petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8500 of 1993 is aged about 75 years as on 1993. When this matter was heard in part

and set down for further hearing, both counsel appearing for the respective parties, keeping in view the interest of their respective clients, agreed to

settle the matter between the parties and took some time and now to-day the case is set down for settlement. To-day they have filed a joint memo

wherein the petitioners have stated that they are agreeable to handover possession of two houses and one and a half shops in item six of the

agreement dated 4.5.1989 on or before 28.4.1995 and towards the rental amount collected for the above mentioned premises upto date, the

petitioners agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- to complainant on or before 28.5.1995. They have also agreed to withdraw all the litigations pending in Civil

Courts and further made it clear that no further claim in respect of any dues, shares, outstandings etc., shall be made as between the parties. The

compromise petition is placed on record. The basis of the complaint being suppression of the Will and conspiracy and once they have agreed to

settle the matter, having regard to the close relationship, there will be no basis for the prosecution and the chance of conviction is bleak and

continuance of the proceedings will be an abuse of process. Therefore, in view of this compromise and since no basis for the prosecution exists, I

see no justification to allow the prosecution and the same is quashed. Petitions are allowed. It is open to the parties to act upon the compromise

entered into and as per the compromise petition which is placed on record. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.