Murugan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL and Crl.M.P(MD)No.2286 of 2025 Murugan ... Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the The Inspector of Police, Uchipuli Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

Crime No. 262/2014.

2. Pandiyammal ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the entire records connected to FIR in Crime No. 262 of 2014 on the file of the respondent no.1 and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner.

1/5

For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani, For R1 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.S.Mohammed Yunnis Raja

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No. 262 of 2014 dated 23.10.2014 on the file of the first respondent police, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act and quash the same.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 24.02.2025, the petitioner along with the defacto complainant appeared before this Court and filed the compromise memo. However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that in this case another victim namely, Rajapandi also got injured in this incident. But he has not been added as a party to this petitioner. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) objected to allow this petition. Therefore, the case has been adjourned to 07.03.2025. On that date, all the parties along with the injured namely, Rajapandi 2/5

appeared before this Court and also they were enquired about the compromise arrived at between them. Both the parties represented that they have entered into a compromise and the defacto complainant and the injured victim stated that they have no objection to quash the FIR. A compromise memo, dated 18.02.2025 signed by the parties and their respective counsel, is also filed before this Court.

3. This Court has perused the terms of the compromise memo.

4. Considering the nature of the offences and the parties have also entered into a compromise, it is appropriate to allow this petition.

5. Recording the said compromise memo, this petition is allowed and the First Information Report in Crime No. 262 of 2014 dated 23.10.2014 on the file of the first respondent police is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR 3/5

To

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the The Inspector of Police, Uchipuli Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J.

LR 28.03.2025 5/5