Sathiyan v. The Inspector Of Police

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4611 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.07.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4611 of 2021 Sathiyan ... Petitioner/Accused Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Periyakulam Police Station, Theni District.

Crime No.282 of 2019.

...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Sudha ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.184 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, Theni District and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunidhi Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.K.Bala Murugan

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.184 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, Theni District.

2. The case in Crime No.282 of 2019 has been registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 354 A(2), 354 A(3), 384, 294(b), 506(i), 509 of I.P.C., Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 67 of Information Technology Act r/w. Section 511 of I.P.C., on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent. After investigation, the first respondent has filed a charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, Theni District in C.C.No.184 of 2020.

3.The crux of the complaint is that the petitioner had taken obscene video of the de-facto complainant and threatened her as if he is going to spread the video in internet and received money from the de-facto complainant. The petitioner demanded further more money https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4611 of 2021 from the de-facto complainant and on her refusal, he caused dire consequences. Hence, the case has been registered for the aforesaid offences.

4. When the matter is taken for hearing, the petitioners/accused and the second respondents are present before the Office of the Additional Public Prosecutor and appeared through video conferencing. Their respective counsels are also present before this Court through video conferencing. The identity of the parties are verified by the respective counsels and the police. When this Court enquired with the parties, it is seen that they have compromised the dispute. The second respondents is willing to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.184 of 2020. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, no purpose would be served in keeping proceedings pending.

5. Recording the joint compromise memo dated 15.03.2021, the proceedings in C.C.No.184 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, Theni District, is hereby quashed. The joint compromise memo shall form part of this order.

6. In fine, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CRL SIDE) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ENCL.: XEROX COPY OF JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO.

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, Theni District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Periyakulam Police Station, Theni District.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4611 of 2021 22.07.2021 CM(CO) TR(09.08.2021) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2