M.Veeraiah, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.08.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11165 of 2017 1.M.Veeraiah 2.M.Meenakshi ... Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 & 2 -Vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

(Crime No.166 of 2017) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.V.Lavanya ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.166 of 2017 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioners :Mr.R.Srinivasan For R-1 :Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate(Crl.side) For R-2 :Mr.Amjadkhan ***

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition is filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.166 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent police. 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.On the basis of complaint given by the second respondent, against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, a case was registered in Cr.No.166 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. 4.It appears that at the advise of the elders and friends, the petitioners and the second respondent have agreed to compromise the matter out of Court. A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 21.08.2017, is also filed. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

complainant, namely, the second respondent has given his consent to quash the entire proceedings in Cr.No.166 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent police.

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 first 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 against the petitioners. Hence the criminal proceedings in Cr.No.166 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police, 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(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

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

+1cc to Mr.R.SRINIVASAN Advocate in SR. No. 74489 IS/CMR JS/GT/SAR.2/8.9.2017/2P-4C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11165 of 2017 24.08.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/