Venkateshwaran, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.08.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11027 of 2017 Venkateshwaran ... Petitioner/Sole Accused -Vs1. The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, CBCID South, Ramnad Police Station, (Crime No.1 of 2016) ...1stRespondent /Complainant

2. Murugesan ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in S.C.No.7 of 2017 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram in Crime No.1 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Veilkaniraju For R-1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate(Crl.side).

For R-2 :Mr.M.Karunanithi ***

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition has been filed to call for the records in S.C.No.7 of 2017 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram in Crime No.1 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.

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

3.On the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent, a case was registered against the petitioner, in Crime

No.58 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, it is stated that the case was altered for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498 (A) of I.P.C. in Crime No.1 of 2016, by the first respondent police. After investigation is completed, a charge sheet was also filed and the case was taken on file in S.C.No.7 of 2017 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram.

4.It appears that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant/second respondent resolved their differences of opinion. The parties namely, the petitioner and the second respondent have also entered into the Joint Compromise Memo signed by them, it is indicated that the parties have settled their dispute amicably. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the defacto complainant, namely, the second respondent has given his consent to quash the entire proceedings in S.C.No.7 of 2017 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram. 5.The parties appeared before this Court and submitted that the Joint Compromise Memo signed by them was 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 concerned police.

6.Since the parties have entered into compromise and agreed that the proceedings in S.C.No.7 of 2017, may be quashed, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence, on the basis of the compromise memo signed by the parties, the proceedings in S.C.No.7 of 2017 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, is quashed in toto. 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(T&P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To Encl:Xerox copy of Joint Compromise memo 1.The Inspector of Police, CBCID South, Ramnad Police Station.

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

3.The Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram. +1 cc to Mr.M.Veilkaniraj , Advocate in SR.No. 73667 Is/cmr AE/SV MMS/SAR2/05.09.2017/3P/5C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11027 of 2017 22.08.2017