Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/14605/2017allowed

Mani v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-10-30Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.10.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14605 of 2017 1.Mani 2.Selvam 3.Sakthivel 4.Thangavel 5.Sundrammal @ Murugammal 6.Kanagaraj 7.Rajesh @ Raja 8.Mahendra Babu 9.Xavior Raj ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 9 -Vs1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Kannivadi Police Station, Dindigul District.

(In Crime No.74 of 2014) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Senthil Kumar ... 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 F.I.R. in Crime No.74 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioners :Mr.R.Gandhi For R-1 :Mr.K.S.Durapandian Additional Public Prosecutor For R-2 :Mr.M.Ananda Munirajan ****

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the F.I.R. in Crime No.74 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent police and 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.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The petitioners are Accused No.1 to 9 in Crime No.74 of 2014. The second respondent lodged a complaint as against the

petitioners and the same was registered in Crime No.74 of 2014, on the file of the first respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 307 IPC.

4.It appears that the dispute between the two groups is purely civil in nature and the petitioners and the second respondent have settled their dispute amicably at the intervention of elders and well wishers. A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 05.07.2017, signed by both parties, in the presence of their respective counsel, is also produced 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.74 of 2014.

5.Today, 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 Cr.No.74 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police, Kannivadi Police Station, Dindigul 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(Crl side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar ENCL:-Xerox Copy of Compromise Memo.

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Kannivadi Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

+1cc to Mr.R.GANDHI,Advocate,SR. 84281 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14605 of 2017 30.10.2017 cmr KK/KP/SAR 4/10.11.2017/ 2P- 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/