Vino v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.07.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Crl.O.P (MD) No.13263 of 2015 1.Vino 2.Rubies alias Antony Rubies 3.Nithis alias Nithin Chandran 4.Benedit alias Boubik 5.Subash 6.Hamnet alias Kemlas 7.Viji alias Anto Viju 8.Saji alias Sahaya Saju 9.Michael alias Michael Raj 10.Shibu alias Antony Shibu ` ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 5,7,8 & 10 to 12 Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by The Inspector of Police, Villisanthai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Arockiyam ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto complainant PRAYER: This petition is preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Cr.No.230 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same in so far as against the petitioners.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Balakrishnan For R1 : Mrs.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.A.Mohamed Haneef

ORDER

This petition has been filed praying to quash the FIR in Crime No. 230 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent. 2.The petitioners are arrayed as accused in Crime No.230 of 2012 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 of I.P.C. The allegation is in pursuant to the dispute that arose with respect to the fishing rights, there was a wordy quarrel followed by attacked.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second

respondent submitted that a joint compromise memo has been filed and affidavit has also been filed by the second respondent and duly signed by them and attested by their respective counsel stating that no further action is required and the matter in issue between them has been amicably resolved and therefore, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is not willing to prosecute the case.

4.In the light of the compromise memo, no purpose will be served by keeping the Criminal Original Petition pending. 5.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.230 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent, is quashed. The Compromise Memo shall form part of the record. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(WRITS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Villisanthai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

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

+1cc to Mr.R.Balakrishnan, Advocate in Sr No.38907 Crl.O.P(MD).No.13263 of 2015 15.07.2015 Ns RJ 03.08.2015 2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/