Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/4256/2018allowed

Ponraj v. The Inspector Of Police

2018-03-20Honourable Mr Justice P. Rajamanickam2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.03.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4256 of 2018 1.Ponraj 2.Kamaraj 3.Naveen @ Naveen Lingamaniraj

...Petitioners/Accused

-Vs1.State Rep by, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiruchendur Police Station, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

(Crime No.274 of 2016) ... 1st Respondent / Complainant 2.Kulanthai Alwar ...2nd Respondent / De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating the case in Crime No.274 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For 1stRespondent : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl.side) For 2nd Respondent : Mr.K.Muthurakkan

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the case in Crime No.274 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police 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 petitioners are the accused in Crime No.274 of 2016. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, against the petitioner, the case was registered in Crime No.274 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police, for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) of IPC https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.It appears that on the advice of friends and elders, the parties have entered into compromise and a Joint Compromise Memo, signed by both parties, in the presence of their respective counsel, is also filed. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent has agreed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.274 of 2016. 5.The parties have 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 First Information Report in Crime No.274 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent police, 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.

1. The Inspector of Police, Tiruchendur Police Station, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

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

+ 1 cc TO Mr.N.Pragalathan , Advocate in SR No. 56666 rmi AE/KKR/SAR3/17.04.2018/2P/4C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4256 of 2018 20.03.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/