Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/10785/2017allowed

Karnan v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-08-17Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.08.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10785 of 2017 Karan ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 -Vs1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District.

...Respondent/Complainant

(Crime No.165 of 2016) 2.Sirpirajan ...2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and to quash the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.148 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate , Karaikudi quash the same as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Sanjay For R1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.D.Palanikumar ***

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.148 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3.Based on the complaint given by the second respondent, a case was registered in Crime No.165 of 2016 as against the petitioner and another for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(ii) IPC. After charge sheet was filed, the case was taken on file in C.C.148 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.It appears that the petitioner and the second respondent have settled their disputes amicably out of Court. It was stated

that due to the wordy quarrel, the case was registered. It is stated that due to intervention of family elders and friends, they have settled their dispute and compromised. The Joint Compromise Memo, dated 11.08.2017, is also filed. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the parities have jointly agreed to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.148 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.

5. The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed in the Joint Compromise Memo on their own will and volition. The identities of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identities of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) through the respondent police.

6. Having regard to the agreement made between the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. As per the Compromise Memo signed by the parties, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent has agreed to quash the proceedings even against the accused. Hence the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.148 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi is quashed in toto and the Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of this order.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CSI) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar (*)COMPROMISE MEMO XEROX COPY IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH To 1.The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +One cc to M/s.S.M.Sanjay, Advocate, SR.No.73013 gsp/cmr RL/5C/2P/JC/SAR2/7/9/2017 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10785 of 2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17/08/2017