Senthil, v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.08.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.10070 & 10142 of 2017 CRL.O.P.(MD)No.10070 of 2017:
Senthil ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.
1. State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.
(In Crime No.150 of 2017) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Sundaram ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.150 of 2017 on the file of the 1st respondent Police and to quash the same.
For Petitioner :
Mr.V.Sasikumar For R-1 :
Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate(Crl.side).
For R-2 :
Mr.S.Ravi CRL.O.P.(MD)No.10142 of 2017:
1.Sundaram 2.Suresh ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 -Vs1. State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.
(In Crime No.149 of 2017) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Senthil Kumar ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.149 of 2017 on the file of the 1st respondent Police and to quash the same.
For Petitioners :
Mr.S.Ravi For R-1 :
Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate(Crl.side).
For R-2 :
Mr.V.Sasikumar *** COMMON ORDER These Criminal Original petitions are filed for quashing the criminal proceedings in Crime Nos.149 and 150 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent Police.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3. A case was registered by the first respondent in Crime No.150 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C., against the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10142 of 2017 and another case was registered by the first respondent in Crime No.149 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.
4. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10070 of 2017 is the defacto complainant in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10142 of 2017 and the first accused in Crime No.149 of 2017 is the defacto complainant in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10070 of 2017. Therefore, a case and counter was registered and the offences are also compoundable.
5. After the registration of the criminal cases, it appears that the parties in both cases have amicably settled their dispute, on the advise of the neighbours and elders. The parties have entered into a compromise. As per the Compromise Memos, the second respondent in both cases have agreed to quash the proceedings in Crime Nos.149 and 150 of 2017.
6. The parties in both cases appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed in the Compromise Memos 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 (Criminal side) through the first respondent police.
7. Having regard to the specific terms of the Compromise Memos, this Court is of the view that no useful or fruitful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence, on the basis of the Compromise Memos signed by the parties, the Criminal Original petitions are allowed and the criminal proceedings in Crime Nos.149 and 150 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent herein are quashed in toto. The Compromise Memos signed by the parties shall form part of the order.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Encl.: Xerox copy of Compromise Memo To
1. The Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+ 1 CC TO Mr.V.SASIKUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 69515 PMU TE/MR-KKR/SAR-III : 06/09/2017 : 3P/4C Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.10070 & 10142 of 2017 02.08.2017