← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/2375/2021disposed of

Shanmugam v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police

2021-04-15Honourable Mr Justice G.Ilangovan2 pages

Crl.OP(MD).No.2375of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.04.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.2375 of 2021 1.Shanmugam 2.Ravi @ Ravikumar ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 vs.

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District.

2. State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatty Police Station, Trichy District.

(Crime No. 786 of 2020) ... Respondents 1 & 2/ Complainant 3.C.Valarjothi ... 3rd Respondent/Defacto Complainant 4.Prema ... 4th Respondent/Victim PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the entire records pertaining to the charge sheet in Special S.C.No.26 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge (PCR) Court, Trichirappalli, and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaran For R1 & R2 : Mr.Chandrasekar, Government Advocate(Criminal Side)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in S.C.No.26 of 2020, on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge (PCR) Court, Trichirappalli.

2.The contention of the petitioner is that based on the complaint lodged by the third respondent, the second respondent registered a case in Crime No.786 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) ® 3 (1) (r), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. 3.The further contention of the petitioners is that he wants to compromise the issue with the respondent 3 & 4 amicably. A joint memo of compromise is filed, which has been duly signed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.OP(MD).No.2375of 2021 petitioners and the respondent 3 & 4 and also by their respective counsels.

4.The petitioners and the respondent 3 & 4 appeared in person along with their respective counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards before this Court. They were also identified by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and Mr.N.Vadivel, SubInspector of Police, Vaiyampatty Police Station, Trichy District. Both the parties to compromise were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence the Compromise Memo is recorded.

5. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also in view of the joint compromise memo, dated 25.01.2021, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending.

6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the entire proceedings in S.C.No.26 of 2020, on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge (PCR) Court, Trichirappalli, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD II) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) dss Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To

1. The I Additional Sessions Judge (PCR) Court, Trichirappalli.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District.

3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatty Police Station, Trichy District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.N.SUDHAGAR NAGARAJ, Advocate (SR-16169[F] dated 17/04/2021) Crl.OP(MD)No.2375 of 2021 15.04.2021 RC (30.07.2021) 2P-6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2