Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/11836/2017allowed

T. Michael Stanis Prabhu v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-09-07Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07.09.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL.O.P.(MD)No.11836 of 2017

1. T.Michael Stains Prabhu

2. Usha Janet Mary

3. Dhanasekar : Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 3 -Vs1. The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi North Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

: 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. Samson Thangaraj : 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the Crime No.32 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC pending on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Aravindraj For 1st Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) For 2nd respondent : Mr.C.Pandidurai

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the Crime No.32 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC pending on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same.

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. On the basis of complaint received from the second respondent, a case was registered in Crime No.32 of 2017 as against the petitioners / A1 to A3 for the offences under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC, on the file of the first respondent Police.

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

4. It appears that the parties viz., the petitioners and the second respondent, after registration of the case, have amicably

settled their dispute out side the Court and entered into a compromise. The joint compromise memo dated 31.08.2017, signed by the petitioners and the defacto complainant, in the presence of their respective counsels is produced before this Court. As per the joint Compromise memo, the de facto complainant has agreed for quashing the Criminal case.

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 terms of the joint memo of compromise, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence the criminal proceedings pending in Crime No.32 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent Police, is quashed in toto and the Joint Compromise Memo dated 31.08.2017 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 Encl:Xerox Copy of Compromise Memo.

1. The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi North Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

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

+ 1 CC TO MR.R. Aravindraj, ADVOCATE IN SR No.77768 trp MK/MR KKR/SAR-3/2P/4C/18.09.2017 CRL.O.P.(MD)No.11836 of 2017 07.09.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/