← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/2099/2018allowed

Chennakrishnan v. The Inspector Of Police

2018-02-12Honourable Mr Justice P. Rajamanickam3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.02.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.2099 and 2114 of 2018 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2099 of 2018 Chennakrishnan

...Petitioner / Sole Accused

-Vs1. The Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.379 of 2017) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Mr.V.Boomiraj ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.379 of 2017 alleged offence under Section 294(b) and 323 IPC dated 12.10.2017 on the file of the first respondent police to quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balamurugapandi For R-1 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R-2 : Mr.M.Vignesh Kumar Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2114 of 2018 1.Mr.V.Boomiraj 2.Selvi 3.Velmurugan

...Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3

-Vs1. The Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.377 of 2017) ...1st Respondent/ Complainant

2. Chennakrishnan ...2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the first information report in Crime No.377 of 2017 alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC, dated 11.10.2017 on the file of the first respondent police to quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Vigneshkumar For R-1 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R-2 : Mr.D.Balamurugapandi COMMON ORDER These Criminal Original petitions in Crl.OP(MD)Nos.2099 and 2114 of 2018 have been filed to quash the First Information Reports in Crime Nos.379 and 377 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police, as against the petitioners.

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

3.The petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.2099 of 2018 is the sole accused in Crime No.379 of 2017 and similarly the petitioners in Crl.OP(MD)No.2114 of 2018 are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.377 of 2017. The first petitioner in Crl.OP(MD) No.2114 of 2018 is the de-facto complainant in Crl.OP(MD)No.2099 of 2018 and similarly the petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.2099 of 2018 is the de-facto complainant in Crl.OP(MD) No.2114 of 2018.

4.The complaint in Crime No.379 of 2017 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC, on the file of the first respondent police. Similarly, the complaint in Crime No.377 of 2017 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC, on the file of the first respondent police.

5.It appears that at the advise of the elders and friends, the petitioners and second respondent in both the cases have agreed to compromise the matter, out of Court. A Joint Compromise Memos, dated 07.02.2018, are also filed to that effect. As per the Joint Compromise Memos, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent, in both cases, have given their consent to quash the First Information Reports in Crime Nos.379 and 377 of 2017. 6.The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed in the Joint Compromise

Memos on their own will and volition. The identities of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identities of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate through the first respondent police.

7.Having regard to the agreement made between the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping these matters pending. As per the Compromise Memos signed by the parties, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent in both cases have agreed to quash the First Information Reports in Crime Nos.379 and 377 of 2017. Hence the First Information Reports in Crime Nos.379 and 377 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District, are quashed in toto and the Joint Compromise Memos signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

8. Accordingly, these Criminal Original petitions are allowed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Encl:Xerox copy of Compromise Memos To

1. The Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

+1cc to Mr.M.Vignesh Kumar Advocate in SR.NO.47979 +1cc to Mr.D.Balamurugapandi Advocate in SR.NO.47974 cp MV:SKV-RSK:SAR2:01/03/2018/3P/5C Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.2099 and 12.02.2018