← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/12371/2016allowed

Vijay v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

2016-07-22Honourable Dr. Justice S. Vimala2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.07.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12371 of 2016

1. Vijay

2. Balamurugan ... Petitioners/A1 & A2 -vs1.

State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Elanjampur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.53/2016) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.

Ramar ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Crime No.53 of 2016 pending investigation on the file of the 1st Respondent police. For Petitioners :

Mr.S.Muniyandi For R1 :

Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 :

No appearance

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered in Crime No.53 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent herein.

2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.53 of 2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 355, 323 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of the 1st respondent police, has been registered against the petitioners/accused.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/Accused and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

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

4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties filed a joint memo of compromise, dated 14.07.2016 duly stating that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above case in Crime No.53 of 2016 pending on the file of the first respondent.

4.1. From the compromise, this Court can safely infer that the chances of the defacto complainant deposing against the petitioners is less and therefore, the chances of conviction of the accused is bleak.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 held that the High Court can quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so requires, i.e. there would be almost no chance of conviction. Thus, B.S.Joshi's case provided a creative solution for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Therefore, considering, a) the nature of relationship between the parties, b) nature of offences alleged c) the settlement arrived at and d) the ultimate result of the prosecution, this Court is of the view that quashing of the First Information Report will be in the ends of justice and accordingly, the same are ordered to be quashed.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.53 of 2016 dated 24.06.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police in respect of the petitioners/accused are hereby quashed.

Sd/ Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

1.

The Sub Inspector of Police, Elanjampur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

2.

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

+1 cc to MR.S.MUNIYANDI, Advocate Sr.NO.38902 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12371 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 22.07.2016 SMA/DB/23/09/2016 :2P/4C