Karthik v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.11.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 14081 of 2017 1.Karthik 2.Raveenthira Bharathi 3.Arunpandiyan

...Petitioners

-Vs1.State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Aravayal Police Station, Sivagangai District.

(Crime No.81 of 2017) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Ganesan ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records connected the FIR in Crime No.81 of 2017 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Aravayal Police Station, Sivagangai District and quash the same as against the petitioners.

For Petitioners :Mr.S.M.Sanjay For R1 :Mr.A.Ramar Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 :Mr.D.Palanikumar ***

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records connected the FIR in Crime No.81 of 2017 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Aravayal Police Station, Sivagangai District and to quash the same.

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

3.The petitioners are accused No. 1 to 3 in Cr.No.81 of 2017. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case was registered as against the petitioners in Crime No.81 of 2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC by the first respondent police.

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

4.After the registration of the complaint the parties namely, the petitioners and the second respondent, namely, the de-facto complainant have settled their dispute amicably out of Court and they have also entered into a compromise, on the advise of elders and their family members. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 10.10.2017, signed by both parties, in the presence of their respective counsel, is also produced before this Court. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent, has agreed to compromise the matter and expressed no objection for quashing the FIR in Cr.No.81 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent.

5.Except the first petitioner, the other parties namely, the second and third petitioner and the second respondent 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 purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence the FIR in Cr.No.81 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent / The Inspector of Police, Aravayal Police Station, Sivagangai 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(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To Encl:Xerox copy of Compromise Memo The Inspector of Police, Aravayal Police Station, Sivagangai District.

+1cc to M/s.S.M.SANJAY Advocate in SR. No. 86946 MM JS/SV.MMS/SAR.2/23.11.2017/2P-3C Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 14081 of 2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13.11.2017