← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/11936/2021allowed

Pavadai @ Krishnamoorthi v. State Rep.By

2021-07-15Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar3 pages

+IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :15.07.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL.O.P.No.11936 of 2021 1.Pavadai @ Krishnamoorthi 2.Kesavan @ Keshvan 3.Sathiya 4.Avaramboo @ Avarambu 5.Uma 6.Sundaramoorthi ... Petitioners/ Accused A1 to A 6 .vs.

1.State rep.by Inspector of Police, Elavanasurkottai Police Station, Villupuram.

1st Respondent/ Complainant 2.Sasikala ..2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to Crime No.32 of 2021, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vijayaragavan For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R 1 Mr.Vijayaragavan for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.32 of 2021, on the file of the 1st respondent police.

2.The case of the petitioners is that a complaint was given by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant which was registered in Crime No.32 of 2021 dt.22.01.2021 for the alleged offense under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 355, 506(ii) IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002 . On 15.01.2021 at about 10 a.m., the 1st accused came to the house of the defacto complainant and asked him to remove the sand stocked in front of his house, in order to conduct procession of Kali Temple. It is further stated

that there are encroachments in the street and requested to remove the same for which the 1st accused is alleged to have abused the defacto complainant and her husband by using filthy language by caste name and further alleged to have beaten the husband of the defacto complainant with slipper. At that time, this was questioned by the defacto complainant, the 2nd accused is alleged to have slapped on the defacto complainant's face and further threatened the defacto complainant and her husband with dire consequences. It is further stated that A-3 to A-6 forced the defacto complainant and her husband to fall on the feet of the 1st accused, having with no other option, the defacto complainant and her husband fell on the feet of the 1st accused. Hence, the complaint was registered by the 1st respondent.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was some quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant during village festival. He further submitted that it is purely a emotional fight and dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. He further submitted that now both the parties arrived at a compromise out of Court.

4.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that it is a wordy quarrel between them and now he is no more interested in pursuing with the complaint against the petitioners.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent Police submitted that the dispute between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, is purely emotional fight and dispute between them. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent had lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent and a case was registered in Crime No.32 of 2021. He submitted that now they have arrived for a compromise out of the Court and the 2nd respondent did not want to proceed the present case.

6.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. 7.Affidavit dt.02.07.2021, filed before this Court which is signed by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and also by their respective counsel. In the affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners and the second respondent have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in Crime No.32 of 2021. All the parties were appeared before this Court through Video Conferencing and also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement. Further they both belong to same village residing in the same area, now bury the hatchet, living peacefully, with harmony and brotherhood.

8.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), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the FIR in Crime No.32 of 2021, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Elavanasurkottai Police Station, Villupuram.

9.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the FIR in Crime No.32 of 2021, pending on the file of the 1st respondent police, is quashed and the terms of affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order. *Herein enclosed the xerox copy of affidavit. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kp To 1.The Inspector of Police, Elavanasurkottai Police Station, Villupuram.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

+1cc to Mr.K.Kavirasu,Advocate SR.No. 34233 CRL.O.P.No.11936 of 2021 A.SK(16.08.2021)