Gurunathan, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.09.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12602 of 2017 1.Gurunathan 2.Satheeshkumar 3.Kalaimaran 4.Muthuraja 5.Vettairaja @ Vettairajan ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 5 -Vs1. State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Saptur Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.176 of 2017) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. Gopalakrishan (minor) rep. through his father Subburaj ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto- Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the case in Crime No.176 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent Police Station, by accepting the joint compromise memo dated 20.09.2017. For Petitioners :

Mr.R. Gowri Shankar For R-1 :

Mr.C.Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor.

For R-2 :

Mr.K.Radhakrishnan ***

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition is filed to quash the case in Crime No.176 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent Police Station, by accepting the joint compromise memo dated 20.09.2017.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3. On the basis of a complaint given by the second respondent, a case was registered in Crime No.176 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 of IPC r/w. Section 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 against the petitioners.

4. The second respondent is a minor and hence, he is represented by his father M.Subburaj.

5. It appears that all the parties have settled their dispute amicably, on the advise of the elders and well wishers. Both the petitioners and the de facto complainant have entered into a compromise and a joint compromise memo signed by the respective parties in the presence of the their respective counsels have been produced before this Court. As per the joint compromise memo dated 20.09.2017, the father of the second respondent has no objection for quashing the criminal proceedings in Crime No.176 of 2017 pending on the file of the first respondent.

6. The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms, that the Joint Compromise Memo signed by them was on their own will and volition. The identity of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identity of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor through the first respondent police.

7. In view of the Compromise Memo signed by the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence, the Criminal Original petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.176 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent is quashed in toto, on the basis of the compromise memo signed by the parties concerned before this Court and the Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To Encl: Xerox copy of compromise memo

1. The Inspector of Police, Saptur Police Station, Madurai District.

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

+ 1 cc TO Mr.R.Gowri Shankar , Advocate in SR No. 80765 trp AE/KP/SAR3/10.10.2017/3P/4C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12602 of 2017 22.09.2017