Dhinakaran v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.01.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 372 of 2018 Dhinakaran

...Petitioner

-Vs1. State Represented through The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station, Paramakudi.

(Cr.No.670 of 2017) 2.Dinakaran Suresh @ Suresh ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.670 of 2017 dated 21.10.2017 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Fernand For R1 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R2 : Mr.P.Arumugam ***

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.670 of 2017 dated 21.10.2017, on the file of the respondent police and to 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 the sole accused in Crime No.670 of 2017. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 307 of I.P.C.

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 FIR in Cr.No. 670 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent. 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 FIR in Cr.No.670 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent / The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station, Paramakudi, 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(W) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To Encl: Xerox copy of compromise memo

1. The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station, Paramakudi.

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

Das AE/RSK/SAR1/09.02.2018/2P/3C Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 372 of 2018 22.01.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/