"Good Samaritan Turned Into Foe": Madras High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Person Who Acted As Mediator In Matrimonial Dispute
The Madras High Court recently quashed the FIR against a man, who tried to reconcile the differences between a couple through compromise, but was himself dragged into the embroil with the filing of a FIR against him by one of the spouse."It is a classical case, good samaritan turned into foe in the process of conciliation between the husband and wife," Justice G Ilangovan observed at...
The Madras High Court recently quashed the FIR against a man, who tried to reconcile the differences between a couple through compromise, but was himself dragged into the embroil with the filing of a FIR against him by one of the spouse.
"It is a classical case, good samaritan turned into foe in the process of conciliation between the husband and wife," Justice G Ilangovan observed at the outset.
K. Arumugam, the Petitioner, was trying to reconcile the matrimonial dispute between Premkumar and P. Sakila. However, Sakila lodged a FIR against Arumugam, alleging offences under Sections 294(b), 323, and 325 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act 1998.
The case of the prosecution was that when the de-facto complainant went to her husband's house for making a compromise, she was driven out of the house and in the process was injured. It was alleged that the third accused (petitioner herein) joined hands with the other accused and abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language.
The petitioner on the other hand argued that he was not involved in the dispute and that he had only tried to make a compromise between them as a social activist and that, he was not involved in the occurrence and was falsely implicated.
The court observed that even though the organisation run by the petitioner for the purpose of making a compromise between the rival groups was not recognised by law, it was clear that his involvement in the occurrence was limited to making a compromise between the husband and wife.
Therefore, the court observed that the allegation that the petitioner joined hands with other accused and abused the de facto complainant was inherently improbable. It was also noted that the complaint was silent with respect to the abusive language used by the petitioner. This would further show that the complaint against the petitioner was malafide.
The court also observed that the offence under Section 294(b) IPC would not stand in the present case as the alleged offence had taken place in the house of the accused and not in a public place or in public view. The court also opined that the allegation made against the petitioner under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act 1998 would not attract.
In such circumstances, the court was inclined to allow the petition and quash the proceedings against the petitioner before the District cum Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri.
Case Title: K Arumugam v State and another
Case No: Crl O.P (MD) No. 21691 of 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr R Karunanithi
Counsel for Respondent: Mr SS Madhavan, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) (R1)