Vaithasu @ Vaithas v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.02.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP CRL.O.P (MD) No.1086 of 2024 1.Vaithasu @ Vaithas 2.Vaibabu 3.Rasu 4.Arumugam 5.Athisayaraj

...Petitioners

vs 1.The Inspector of Police, Thirupullani Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

(Cr.No.230 of 2012) 2.Jegadish

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying, to call for the records in C.C.No.214 of 2019 in Cr.No.230 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram and to quash the same.

1/5

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Packiaraj For R1 : Mr.M.Veeranthrian Government Advocate (crl.side) For R2 :Mr.M.Silambarasan ****

O R D E R

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that this Petition had been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.214 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram. The Petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A5 in C.C.No.214 of 2019.

2.The case was registered based on the complaint given by the second Respondent/De-Facto Complainant before the first Respondent, Thirpullani Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. The complaint was registered in Cr.No.230 of 2012, the same was investigated and final report was laid before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram, for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 336, 323 and 506(i) IPC. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that among the Petitioners, the first and second Petitioners were already employed as 2/5

construction labourers in Dubai and Singapore. Now, they have received visa for their work abroad. Therefore, they had settled amicably with the De-Facto Complainant/second Respondent in order to give a quietus to the pending criminal litigation, so that there will be a peace in the neighbourhood and in the families of the De-Facto Complainant and Accused.

3.Mr.M.Silambarasan, learned Counsel for the second Respondent had filed a vakalat for the second Respondent/De-Facto Complainant. Also, both the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the second Respondent had filed joint compromise memo. 4.Mr.V.Pandi, Sub Inspector of Police, Thirupullani Police station, Ramanathapuram District, appeared before this Court and filed a status report of the Inspector of Police, Thirupullani Police station, Ramanathapuram. In the status, it is stated that subsequent to the filing of the charge sheet and in the course of the pending trial, the complainant party and the accused party had arrived at a settlement. The same is bona fide. 3/5

5.In the light of the status report filed by the first Respondent and in the light of the joint compromise memo, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the charge sheet pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram, in C.C.No.214 of 2019 is quashed. Index :Yes/No 09.02.2024 NCC :Yes/No Note: Issue order copy by 12.02.2024.

cmr To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thirupullani Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

4/5

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP , J.

cmr CRL.O.P (MD) No.1086 of 2024 09.02.2024 5/5