D. Rasool Ansari v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.02.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3067 of 2018 1.D.Rasool Ansari .. Petitioner /Sole Accused -Vs1. The Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Golden Rock, Trichy, (In Crime No.10 of 2017) ... 1stRespondent/Complainant 2.Najrana ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records in F.I.R in Crime No.10 of 2017 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthick Subramanian For 1stRespondent : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl.side) For 2nd Respondent : Mr.P.Kamaraj

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire records in F.I.R in Crime No.10 of 2017 on the file of the 1st 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 sole accused in Crime No.10 of 2017. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) of IPC. 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 proceedings in Crime No.10 of 2017 on the file of the 1st respondent against the sole accused alone. 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 proceedings in Crime No.10 of 2017 on the file of the 1st respondent, against the sole accused, 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 (CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Encl.: Xerox copy of Compromise Memo To

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Golden Rock, Trichy.

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

+ 1 CC TO Mr.S.KARTHICK SUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 51740 DSS TE/KKR/SAR-3 : 15/03/2018 : 2P/4C Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 3067 of 2018 27.02.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/