Subramanian, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.11.2017 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL OP(MD)No.14121 of 2017 1.Subramanian 2.Mariappan 3.Shanmugakani 4.Murugan 5.Sathish 6.Jeyakumar 7.Chandran ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7 Vs.

1.State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Ottapidaram Police Station, Tuticorin District.

(Crime No.99 of 2017) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Ajith ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in FIR in Crime No.99 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Banuprasath For R-1 : Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, Addl.Public Prosecutor For R-2 : Mr.K.Seemaraj

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition is filed for quashing the criminal proceedings in Cr.No.99 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3.The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 7 in Crime No.99 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent/de-facto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.99 of 2017, dated 07.07.2017, for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the offences under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC.

5. It appears that the parties, namely, the petitioners and the second respondent have settled their dispute amicably out of Court, on the advise of the family members and elders. The parties also have entered into a compromise. A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 10.10.2017, signed by the petitioners and the de-facto complainant in the presence of their respective counsels is produced before this Court. As per the memo of compromise, the defacto complainant has agreed to quash the criminal proceedings in Cr.No.99 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent.

6. The parties, namely, the petitioners 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.

7. 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, on the basis of the Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties, the Criminal Original petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in Cr.No.99 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent, is quashed in toto. The Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Ottapidaram Police Station, Tuticorin District.

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

+1cc to M/s.P.BANU PRASATH Advocate in SR. No. 90170 AM JS/MR.KKR/SAR.2/12.12.2017/2P-4C CRL OP(MD)No.14121 of 2017 28.11.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/