Prabhu v. The Inspector Of Police

Crl.OP(MD).No.744 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.01.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Crl.OP(MD)No.744 of 2021 1.Prabhu 2.Angammal 3.Thanga Kalyani 4.Ganga @ Gangadevi 5.Prakash 6.Divya ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, E4, Sindhupatti Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.115 of 2014) ...1st Respondent / Complainant 2.Menaga ...2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in CC.No.117 of 2020 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, Madurai District and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioners :

Mr.Solai Alagan.PL.S For R1 :

Mr.A.Robinson, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the CC.No.117 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, Madurai District on the basis of a joint compromise memo filed by the petitioners and the second respondent. 2.The contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners and the second respondent is that based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered First Information Report in Crime No.115 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, against the petitioners.

3.The further contention of the petitioners is that they want to compromise the issue between them and the second respondent amicably. A joint memo of compromise was filed, which has been duly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.OP(MD).No.744 of 2021 signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsels.

4.The petitioners and the second respondent appeared in person before this Court along with their counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards. They were also identified by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and Mr.A.Ayyanan, Special SubInspector of Police, Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station, Madurai 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 petitioners and also in view of the joint compromise memo, dated 05.01.2021 this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. Hence, all further proceedings in in CC.No.117 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, Madurai District is quashed.

6. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the entire proceedings in in CC.No.117 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, Madurai District is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners 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) mbi 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: Photocopy of the Joint Compromise memo. To 1.The Judicial Magistrate,Thirumangalam,Madurai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, E4, Sindhupatti Police Station,Madurai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.

Crl.OP(MD)No.744 of 2021 29.01.2021 (DKS)CO AP(10/02/2021) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2