Subramanian v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07.03.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.3482 and 3483 of 2018 Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 3482 of 2018 1.Subramanian 2.Vasu @ Vasukrishnakumar 3.Manikandan @ Vasumanikandakumar 4.Karthi @ Karthik 5.Moorthy 6.Manikandan @ Manikanda Prabu 7.Chinnamuniyandi @ Muniyandi 8.Periyamuniyandi 9.Nadumuniyandi @ Muniraj 10.Pandi

...Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 10

-Vs1. The State represented by its, The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar District, (In Crime No.20 of 2017) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Thanushkodi ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No.20 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioners :Mr.G.Mariappan For R-1 :Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R-2 :Mr.K.Seenu Ramachandran Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 3483 of 2018 1.Chendhurpandi @ Senthoorapandi 2.Mariappan 3.Thanushkodi

...Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3

-Vs-

1. The State represented by its, The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar District, (In Crime No.19 of 2017) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Pandi ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No.19 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioners :Mr.K.Seenu Ramachandran For R-1 :Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R-2 :Mr.G.Mariappan COMMON ORDER These Criminal Original petitions have been filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime Nos.20 and 19 of 2017 respectively 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 petitioners in Crl.OP(MD) No.3482 of 2018 are the accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 11 in Crime No.20 of 2017 and similarly the petitioners in Crl.OP(MD) No.3483 of 2017 are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.19 of 2017. The third petitioner in Crl.OP(MD) No.3483 of 2018 is the de-facto complainant in Crl.OP(MD) No.3482 of 2018 and similarly the tenth petitioner in Crl.OP(MD) No.3482 of 2018 is the de-facto complainant in Crl.OP(MD) No.3483 of 2018. 4.It is represented that in Cr.No.20 of 2017, pending First Information Report Accused No.6 viz., Ramalingam died. Hence, no petition is filed for A-6 in Cr.No.20/2017.

5.The complaint in Crime No.20 of 2017 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b) and 324 IPC, on the file of the first respondent police. Similarly, the complaint in Crime No.19 of 2017 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC, on the file of the respondent police.

6.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. Joint Compromise Memos, dated 01.03.2018, are also filed to that effect. As per the Joint

Compromise Memos, the de-facto complainants in both cases, have given their consent to quash the entire proceedings in Crime Nos.20 and 19 of 2017.

7.The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed in the Joint Compromise Memo 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 (Crl.Side) through the first respondent police.

8.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 proceedings in Crime Nos.20 and 19 of 2017. Hence the criminal proceedings in Crime Nos.20 and 19 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police, Soolakarai Police Station, Virudhunagar District, are quashed in respect of the petitioners in both the petitions and the Joint Compromise Memos signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

9.Accordingly, these Criminal Original petitions are allowed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Copy of Compromise Memo enclosed herewith To 1.The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar District.

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

+1CC TO M/S.G.MARIAPPAN, ADVOCATE, SR NO.53732 +1CC TO M/S.K.SEENURAMACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE, SR NO.53731 Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos. 3482 and 3483 of 2018 07.03.2018 VS MS/SV-MMS/SAR-1/27.03.2018/3P.5C