Karuppasamy v. The Inspector Of Police

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.10794 of 2017 1.Karuppasamy 2.Kalaimani 3.Ramalakshmi 4.Muppidathi ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 -Vs1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Puliyankudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

...1st Respondent/Complainant (Crime No.45 of 2016) 2.Veeramani ...2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned F.I.R. in Crime No.45 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the same.

For Petitioners :Mr.K.Prabhu For R1 :Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 :Mr.J.Senthil kumar ***

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the impugned F.I.R. in Crime No.45 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police Puliyankudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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. Based on the complaint received from the de-facto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.45 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police, Puliyankudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 342, 355 and 307 I.P.C.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.After the case was registered, it appears that the petitioners/accused No.1 to 4 and the second respondent/de-facto complainant have settled their dispute amicably at the instance and intervention of elders and the well wishers. A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 08.08.2017, is also filed. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, second respondent has given his consent to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.45 of 2016.

5. The parties, namely, the petitioners 1 to 4 and the second respondent / de-facto complainant, 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 Crime No.45 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police Puliyankudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District is quashed in toto and the Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar.

Herewith enclosed xerox copy of Memo of compromise. To 1 The Inspector of Police, Puliyankudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

2 The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1CC to Mr.K.Prabhu, Advocate, SR.No. 73135 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10794 of 2017 gsp/cmr AM/SV MMS/SAR 1/28.08.2017/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/