Prasath @ Shanmugaprasath v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL. O.P(MD) No.2905 of 2025 Prasath @ Shanmugaprasath ... Petitioner/Accused No.12 vs.
1.The State Rep. by, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Rural Sub Division, Dindigul.
2.The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul.
(Cr.No.42 of 2016) 3.Ramar ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to call for the records pertaining to Charge Sheet in Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of SC and ST Cases, Dindigul and quash the same.
Page No. 1 of 5
For petitioner : Mr.S.Arjun For Respondents : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 & R2 Mr.B.Vinoth Kumar for R3 *****
O R D E R
This petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records pertaining to Charge Sheet in Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2023, on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of SC and ST Cases, Dindigul and quash the same.
2. Based on the complaint given by the third respondent/defacto complainant, the police has registered FIR in Cr.No.42 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 336, 427 read with 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of SC and ST Cases, Dindigul in Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2023 has framed charges under Sections, 147, 148, 341, 294(b) read with 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC and ST Act, and Section 3(2)(A) of The Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.
Page No. 2 of 5
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel on both sides represented that during pendency of the case in Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2023, the matter has also been amicably settled between the parties and to that effect, they have entered into a compromise and the same was filed before this Court. They further submitted that already the case against the other accused has been quashed by this Court.
4. Today, the defacto-complainant and the accused are present and the Court enquired about the terms of compromise. The defactocomplainant represented that they entered into a compromise and he has no objection to quash the proceedings. A compromise memo, dated 14.02.2025 signed by the parties and their respective counsels, is also filed before this Court.
5. This Court has perused the terms of the compromise memo.
6. Considering the nature of the offences and considering the facts that the parties have also entered into a compromise and already the case has been quashed as against the other accused and the parties are also hailing from same village, it is appropriate to allow this petition. Page No. 3 of 5
7. Recording the said compromise memo, this petition is allowed and Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2023, on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of SC and ST Cases, Dindigul, is quashed. The compromise memo, dated 14.02.2025 filed by the parties shall form part of this order. 18.02.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Rural Sub Division, Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No. 4 of 5
P.DHANABAL,J apd Crl.OP(MD) No.2905 of 2025 18.02.2025 Page No. 5 of 5