Karunakaran v. State Rep. By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.02.2020
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. RAJAMANICKAM Crl.O.P. No.2272 of 2020
1. Karunakaran
2. Paneer
3. Sakthivel
4. Velu
5. Ramu
6. Nagooran
7. Venkatesan
8. Manikandan
9. Selvam
10. Ashok
11. Saravanan
12. Ponnuvel
13. Gopi
14. Sathyamoorthy
15. Shanmugam
16. Kuppan
17. Prasanth
18. Sekar
19. Muthu
20. Moorthy
21. Sakthivel
22. Muniyan
23. Mannudevan .... Petitioners Vs.
1. State, rep.by The Inspector of Police, G-6, Cheyyur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.
(Crime No.271 of 2012)
2. Ramesh
...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the FIR in Crime No.271 of 2012 on the file of the Inspector of Police, G6, Cheyyur Police Station, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sunil Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 Mr. K.Duraisamy, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Muthumani Duraisamy for R2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and to quash the FIR in Crime No.271 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, and 506(2) of IPC r/w 307 of IPC pending on the file of first respondent police as against the petitioners.
2. The second respondent, who is the defacto complainant has lodged a complaint against the petitioners and based on the same, the first respondent has registered an FIR in Crime No.271 of 2012 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, and 506(2) of IPC r/w 307 of IPC.
3. The case is still in the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
4. A joint memo of Compromise, dated 14.02.2020, has been filed before this Court which has been signed by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent also present in person before this Court. This Court also enquired both the parties and satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
5. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending. Even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature, in the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the Case in Crime No. 2 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police.
6. This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.271 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent, is hereby quashed and the terms of Memo of Compromise shall form part and parcel of this order. Today (14.02.2020), the Petitioner *No.20 viz., Moorthy, is not
appeared before this court. Hence, this petition is dismissed against him.
(* Xerox Copies Enclosed along with Memorandum of Compromise) Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) Dated: 26.06.2020 * Corrected as per the order of this Court for Being Mentioned dated 05.01.2021 sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) Dated: 11.01.2021.
//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Vv To
1. The Inspector of Police, To be Substituted to the G-6, Cheyyur Police Station, order already despatched Kancheepuram District.
On 20.08.2020
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to M/s.R.Sunil Kumar, Advocate, Sr.No.13330 Crl.O.P. No.2272 of 2020 BP(CO) GS(10/07/2020) SP(20/01/2021)