R. Nagaraj v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.01.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 1361 of 2018 R.Nagaraj ... Petitioner/Sole Accused -Vs1. The Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Virudhunagar.

(Cr.No.946 of 2017) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. Vigneshwaren ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and to quash the FIR in Crime No.946 of 2017 pending on the file of the first respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajamohan For R1 : Mr.Prabu Ramachandran Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R2 : Mr.V.A.Dhana Aravindha

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and to quash the FIR in Crime No.946 of 2017 pending on the file of the first respondent Police.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3.The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.946 of 2017. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest act, 2003 on the file of the first respondent Police.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.It appears that the petitioner and the second respondent,

namely, the de-facto complainant have settled their dispute amicably out of Court and they have also entered into a compromise, on the advise of elders and their relatives. A Joint Compromise Memo, signed by both parties, in the presence of their respective counsel, is also produced before this Court. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent, has no objection for quashing the FIR in Crime. No. 946 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent.

5. The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed the Joint Compromise Memo on their own free will and volition. The identity of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identity of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the first respondent police.

6.Having regard to the specific terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence the FIR in Crime. No.946 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent / the Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Virudhunagar, is quashed in toto. The Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

7.Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Encl.: Xerox copy of Compromise Memo To

1. The Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Virudhunagar.

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

+ 1 CC TO Mr.R.RAJAMOHAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 44817 TRP TE/KKR/SAR-2 : 20/02/2018 : 2P/4C Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 1361 of 2018 30.01.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/