Jeyaraj v. The Inspector Of Police

CRL.O.P (MD) No.5281 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.06.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM CRL.O.P (MD) No.5281 of 2022

1. Jeyaraj

2. Manimaran ... Petitioners/ Accused 1&2 Vs

1. The Inspector of Police, Ayikudi Police Station, Tenkasi District.

(Crime No.304/2021).

... Respondent/Complainant

2. Kuzhanthaivel ... Respondent/ Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.304 of 2021, on the file of the first respondent police.

For Petitioners :

Mr.K.Kevin Karan For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James (R1) Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Mr.D.Thilagarani(R2)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.304 of 2021, on the file of the first respondent police. 2.The case of the prosecution is that due to family dispute, the accused persons/petitioners went to the house of the defacto complainant and abused his son-in-law with filthy language. Hence, the complaint.

3.The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 4.A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.M.Shahul Hameed, Head Constable, Ayikudi Police Station. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

CRL.O.P (MD) No.5281 of 2022 5.In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and the parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has to power to quash the complaint for the offence under Sections 294(b), 506(i) IPC. 6.The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Panjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) reported in (2017)9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration. 7.In the light of the guidelines issued in the above said Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings in Crime No.304 of 2021 pending before the first respondent police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.304 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed insofar as the petitioners alone and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // /06/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) PNM Enclosed herewith Copy of the Joint Compromise Memo To

1. The Inspector of Police, Ayikudi Police Station, Tenkasi District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.K. KEVIN KARAN, Advocate ( SR-26011[F] dated 16/06/2022 ) CRL.O.P (MD) No.5281 of 2022 15.06.2022 RD(23.06.2022) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2