Sulthan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.01.2018

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM Crl.O.P.(MD) No.68 of 2018 1.Sulthan 2.Mariam Beevi 3.Abbas @ Mohammed Abbas Kamardeen 4.Sulaiha Beevi ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 -Vs1. State through the Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station, (In Crime No.97 of 2016), Madurai District.

... 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. Sabura Beevi ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and to quash the FIR in Crime No.97 of 2016 pending on the file of the 1st respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.A.Dhana Aravindha Balaji for M/s Dhana Law Associates For Respondent : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu (for R1) Government Advocate(Crl.side) For R2 : Mr.T.Ramar

O R D E R

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and to quash the FIR in Crime No.97 of 2016 pending on the file of the 1st respondent police.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent.

3.The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.97 of 2016. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323 IPC.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.It appears that the petitioners 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. 97 of 2016 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.97 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent / The Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station, Madurai District, 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 Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station, Madurai District.

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

+ 1 CC TO M/s.DHANA LAW ASSOCIATES, IN SR No. 43023 TA TE/JC/SAR-4 : 14/02/2018 : 2P/4C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.68 of 2018 19.01.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/