Egambaram v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL. O.P(MD) No.2596 of 2025
1. Egambaram
2. Sathiyaseelan
3. Arumugam
4. Ramkumar
5. Sathiyamoorthi
6. Sivakumar
7. Suresh
8. Manivel ... Petitioners Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thanthonimalai Police Station, Karur District.
(In Crime No. 174 of 2021).
2. Karthikeyan ... Respondents Page No. 1 of 6
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Charge Sheet in C.C. No. 20 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 Karur and to Quash the same as illegal in So far as the Petitioner is concerned. For petitioners : Mr.V. Karuna, For R1 : Mr. M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl side) For R2 : Mr.R.Gunasekaran *****
O R D E R
This petition has been filed by the petitioners to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.20 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 Karur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 506(2) and 325 of IPC in Crime No.174 of 2021 and quash the same.
2. According to the petitioners, due to futile argument, there was a dispute between the petitioners and defacto complainant. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the police has registered FIR in Cr.No. 174 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 506(2) and 324 of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act. A counter Page No. 2 of 6
case is also pending in Cr.No. 175 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) and 379 of IPC.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel on both sides represented that during pendency of the case in C.C.No.20 of 2025, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and to that effect, they have entered into a compromise and the same was filed before this Court.
4. Today, the defacto-complainant and all the accused are present and the Court enquired about the terms of compromise. The defactocomplainant represented that they entered into a compromise with the accused as they are neighboring villagers and known persons. A compromise memo, dated 06.01.2025 signed by the parties and their respective counsels, is also filed before this Court. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the first petitioner has four previous cases and thereby, strongly opposed to allow this petition. Page No. 3 of 6
6.In reply, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that all the cases are foisted against the first petitioner due to political motive.
7. This Court has perused the terms of the compromise memo.
8. Considering the nature of the offences and the parties have also entered into a compromise and counter case also compromised between the parties, and another victim also filed affidavit stating that he did not sustain injury and the matter has been amicably settled and he has not objection to allow this petition, it is appropriate to allow this petition.
9. Recording the said compromise memo, this petition is allowed and C.C.No.20 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 Karur is quashed. The compromise memo dated 06.01.2025 filed by the parties shall form part of this order.
21.02.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No LR Page No. 4 of 6
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thanthonimalai Police Station, Karur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No. 5 of 6
P.DHANABAL,J LR Crl.OP(MD) No.2596 of 2025 21.02.2025 Page No. 6 of 6