Lakshmanan, v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.04.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5583 of 2019 Lakshmanan ... Petitioner/Accused Vs.
1.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondent/Complainant 2.Ragavi
...Respondent/De-facto Complainant
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records the compromise between the parties based on the compromise memo dated 05.03.2019 signed by both parties and quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.322 of 2018, on the file of the first respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi For R-1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R-2 : Mr.R.Balasubramaniam
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the investigation in Crime No.322 of 2018, on the file of the first respondent.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a brother of the de-facto complainant's father. The de-facto complainant marriage was performed with one Jeyakumar on 28.01.2018, thereafter the defacto complainant without any reason left the matrimonial home and joint with one Yogesh and went to Madurai and the said facts was spread over the locality for which the petitioner questioned the de-facto complainant and attacked the de-facto complainant. Thereby, she sustained injuries. Hence, she filed a complaint before the respondent police.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is paternal uncle of the de-facto complainant and the de-facto complainant father is an abroad and the petitioner is taking care of the de-facto complainant and her family in order to protect the dignity she went away and now the de-facto complainant and the petitioner compromise themselves. Since they https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
have compromised among themselves, the petitioner appeared before this Court and confirmed the compromise. The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant also confirmed the said compromise. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State would submit that both the petitioner and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.A.Marimuthu, Sub-Inspector of Police and they have also filed joint compromise memo before this Court, which was also signed by the petitioner and the de-facto complainant and also by their respective counsels.
5. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending. Even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.322 of 2018. 6.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the investigation in Crime No.322 of 2018, on the file of the first respondent, is quashed and the terms of Joint Compromise Memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) Enclosure: Xerox copy of Joint Compromise Memo To 1.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5583 of 2019 12.04.2019 SP/02/05/2019/3P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/