Senthilnathan v. The Inspector Of Police

Crl.OP(MD).No.513 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.01.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Crl.OP(MD)No.513 of 2021 Senthilnathan ... Petitioner/Sole Accused vs.

1.The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Panthalkudi Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ... 1st Respondent/Respondent (Crime No.14 of 2016) 2.Tamilselvi ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in STC.No.586 of 2016 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner :Mr.V.Sasikumar For R1 :Mr.A.Robinson, Government Advocate(Criminal Side) Mr. Murugapandi.S for R2

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the STC.No.586 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai on the basis of a joint compromise memo filed by the petitioner and second respondent.

2.The contention of the petitioner is that based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.14 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(1) of Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner. Now, the case is pending in STC.No.586 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai. 3.The further contention of the petitioner is that he wants to compromise the issue between him and the second respondent amicably. A joint memo of compromise was filed, which has been duly signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and also by their respective counsels.

4.The petitioner and the second respondent appeared in persons along with their respective counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards before this Court. They were also identified by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.OP(MD).No.513 of 2021 learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and Mr.P.Vijayakumar, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Panthalkudi Police Station, Virudhunagar District. Both the parties to compromise were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence the Compromise Memo is recorded.

5.Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also in view of the joint compromise memo, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. Hence, all further proceedings in STC.No.586 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, is quashed. 6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the entire proceedings in STC.No.586 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner/sole accused and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI ACT) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

Encl: Xerox copy fo Joint Compromise Memo To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Panthalkudi Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.513 of 2021 27.01.2021 VB (11.02.2021) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2