Sacratees v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.02.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1615 of 2018 Sacretees ..Petitioner/Sole Accused -Vs1.The State By The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Muthukrishnan ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.89 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent and quash the sasme.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For 1stRespondent : Mr.Prabhu Ramachandran Government Advocate (Crl.side) For 2nd Respondent : Mr.T.Leninkumar

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.89 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

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.89 of 2011. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, against the petitioner, the case was registered in Crime No.89 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent police, for the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.It appears that on the advice of friends and elders, the parties have entered into compromise and a Joint Compromise Memo, signed by both parties, in the presence of their respective counsel, is also filed. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent has agreed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.89 of 2011. 5.The parties have 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 First Information Report in Crime No.89 of 2011, on the file of the first respondent police, 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(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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

+One cc to Mr.D.Venkatesh, Advocate, SR.No.46032 cp/das RL/4C/2P/KKR/SAR1/8/2/2018 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1615 of 2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 02.02.2018