Veilumuthupandian v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.10.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13654 of 2017 1.Veilumuthupandian 2.Meena ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 -Vs1. The Inspector of Police, Munnerpallam, Tirunelveli ... 1st Respondent/Respondent 2.Mohammed Mahaboob ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Cr.No.96 of 2017 on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Maheswaran For R1 : Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.P.Ronald

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the FIR in Cr.No.96 of 2017 on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the same.

2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3.The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.96 of 2017. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent as against the petitioners, the case was registered in Cr.No.96 of 2017 for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 294(b) and 506(1) IPC. 4.It appears that the parties have settled their dispute amicably out of Court and they have also entered into a compromise, on the advice of well wishers and friends. A Joint Compromise Memo, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

signed by both parties, in the presence of their respective counsel, is also filed before this Court. As per the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent has no objection for quashing the First Information Report in Cr.No.96 of 2017.

5.The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed the Joint Compromise Memo on their own free 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.

6.Having regard to the specific terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, this Court is of the view that no useful or fruitful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence the First Information Report in Crime No.96 of 2017, on the file of the second respondent / The Inspector of Police, Munnerpallam, Tirunelveli District, 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 (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Encl.: Xerox copy of Compromise Memo To

1. The Inspector of Police, Munnerpallam, Tirunelveli.

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

+ 2 CC TO Mr.R.MAHESWARAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 82889 MM TE/KP/SAR-II : 25/10/2017 : 2P/5C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13654 of 2017 13.10.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/