Manikandan@Manikanda Prabu v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.06.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH CRL.OP.(MD)No.10159 of 2015 1.Manikandan @ Manikanda Prabu 2.Kadar Oli 3.Kumaresan 4.Jeyapandi 5.Malar @ Malarkodi ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 Vs.

1.The State through, The Inspector of Police, D-1, Tallakulam Police Station,Madurai City Madurai.

..1st Respondent/Complainant 2.R.Saravanan ..2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records connected with the case in P.R.C.No.93 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai in Crime No.463 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Alagumani For R1 ...

Mr.K.Anbarasan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 ...

Mr.R.Ramanatha Sethupathi

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.93 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai in Crime No.463 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5 in P.R.C.No.93 of 2013 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b) and 307 of I.P.C. Both the first petitioner and the defacto complainant are drivers.

3.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the parties namely, the petitioners and the defacto complainant are present before this Court. Both parties submitted that the matter has been settled. The presence of the parties is recorded. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. A joint compromise memo has been filed, containing the signature of the petitioners and the second respondent. The same was attested by the learned counsel on both sides, wherein it has been stated that the respondent No.2 has no objection in quashing the proceedings in P.R.C.No.93 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. This Court has also perused the compromise memo.

6.Considering the submissions made and after going through the relevant documents and after looking at the nature of offences alleged against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings as no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial any longer. Accordingly, the proceedings in P.R.C.No.93 of 2013, is quashed. The compromise memo shall form part of record. This petition is ordered.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.

2.Do through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai District

3. The Inspector of Police, D-1, Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai City Madurai.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+One cc to Mr.R.Alagumani, Advocate, SR.no.29064 pm RL/6 c- 19/6/2015 Crl.OP.(MD)No.10159 of 2015 08.06.2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/