Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/13003/2017closed

Ragul, S/O.Gurunathan, v. The Inspector Of Police,

2017-09-27Honourable Mr Justice M.V. Muralidaran2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.09.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13003 of 2017 Ragul ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 -Vs1.State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District.

(In Crime No.1 of 2014) ... Respondent/Complainant 2.Vellaiyan ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records in Crime No.1 of 2014 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District, and to quash the same. For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Pitchai Muthu For R-1 :

Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate(Crl.side).

For R-2 : Mr.G.Ravi ***

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition is filed to call for records relating to the case in Crime No.1 of 2014 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District, and to 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, against the accused, a case was registered in Crime No.1 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 324 and 307 I.P.C. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. It appears that at the advise of the elders and friends, the petitioner and second respondent have agreed to compromise the matter out of Court. A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 27.09.2017, is also filed. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the defacto complainant, namely, second respondent has given his consent to quash the entire proceedings culminating in C.C.No.129 of 2014 in favour of the petitioner.

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 defacto complainant, namely, the second respondent has agreed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/second accused. Hence the criminal proceedings in Crime No.1 of 2014 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District, is quashed in respect of the petitioner/second respondent and 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(Writs) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar (*)JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO XEROX COPY IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH To 1.The Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District.

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

+One cc to Mr.M.Pitchai Muthu, Advocate, SR.No.81297 sj rl/4c/2p/SKN/RSK/SAR2/28/9/2017 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13003 of 2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 27.09.2017