M.Velmurugan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.06.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH CRL.OP.(MD)No.8604 of 2015 1.M.Velmurugan 2.S.Muniyasamy 3.C.Gopi ... Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 to 3 Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Parthibanoor Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.33 of 2012) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.S.Kaleeswaran ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.50 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi in Crime No.33 of 2012, dated 07.02.2012 registered by the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioners ...

Mr.P.Irulandi For R1 ...

Mr.K.Anbarasan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 ...

Mr.V.Selva

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.50 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi in Crime No.33 of 2012, dated 07.02.2012 registered by the first respondent.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.50 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 325 and 506(I) of I.P.C.

3.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the parties namely, the petitioners and the defacto complainant are present before this Court. Both parties submitted that the matter has been settled. The presence of the parties is recorded. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. A joint compromise memo has been filed, containing the signature of the petitioners and the second respondent. The same was attested by the learned counsel on both sides, wherein it has been stated that the occurrence had taken place in pursuant to the wordy quarrel between the parties while playing cricket and it is further stated that the dispute has been resolved due to the intervention of elders and hence, the proceedings in C.C.No.50 of 2014 may be quashed.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. This Court has also perused the compromise memo.

6.Considering the age of the petitioners and the submissions made and after going through the relevant documents and after looking at the nature of offences alleged against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings as no useful purpose would be served in continuing the trial any longer. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.50 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, is quashed. The compromise memo shall form part of record. This petition is ordered.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) Encl:

Copy of Compromise Memo /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Parthibanoor Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

+1cc to MR.P.Irulandi, Advocate Sr.No.29533 pm AA/19.06.2015/ 2p- 5c/ CRL.OP.(MD)No.8604 of 2015 08.06.2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/