Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/8777/2015allowed

Karthik, S/O. Muniyandi, v. The State Rep. By Inspector Of

2015-06-08Honourable Mr Justice M.M.Sundresh2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.06.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH CRL.OP.(MD)No.8777 of 2015 1.Karthik S/o.Muniyandi 2.Mariappan 3.Arun 4.Karthik, S/o.Karuppusamy 5.Soorya Prakash 6.Ram ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 Vs.

1.The State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station, Madurai.

2.Mr.K.Ganesan ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records in Crime No.194 of 2014, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station, Madurai and quash the same.

For Petitioners ...

Mr.A.Sivasubramanian For R1 ...

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

Mr.N.Ranjith

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.194 of 2014, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station, Madurai.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.194 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent for the alleged offences under Sections 365, 323, 403, 506(i) and 120(b) 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.

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 second respondent would like to withdraw the complaint. 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.

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

6.A perusal of the records would show that there was a civil dispute between the parties and the accused forcibly obtained some documents from the second respondent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case 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 F.I.R as no useful purpose would be served by continuing the case any longer. Accordingly, the F.I.R in Crime No.194 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent, is quashed. The compromise memo shall form part of record. This petition is ordered.

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

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

+1cc to Mr.Siva Ayyappan, Advocate in SR.No.29063 CRL.OP.(MD)No.8777 of 2015 08.06.2015 pm PBK/AMF 18/06/2015 ::2P-4C::

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