Muthuselvan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.11.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15343 of 2017 1.Muthuselvam 2.Gopala Krishnan 3.Periyasamy ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 3 -Vs1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul.

...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Vellaiammal ..2nd Respondent / De-facto complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the first information report in Crime No.26 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Jegan For R1 : Mr.A.Ramar Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.T.Sravana Pandian

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the first information report in Crime No.26 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police.

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.

3.The petitioners are accused No.1 to 3 in Crime No.26 of 2016. The second respondent has given a complaint, as against the petitioners, the same was registered in Crime No.26 of 2016, by the first respondent police, for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 494 and 506(i) IPC.

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

4.After registration of the complaint, the petitioners and the second respondent have settled their dispute amicably, at the intervention of elders and relatives and they have also entered into a compromise. A Joint Compromise Memo, signed by both parties, in the presence of their respective Counsel, is also produced before this Court. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent has agreed for quashing the first information report in Crime No.26 of 2016. 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.In view of 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 Crime No.26 of 2016, on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul, 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 /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Encl: Xerox copy of compromise memo To

1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul.

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

Cmr AE/SKN RSK/SAR1/23.11.2017/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15343 of 2017 10.11.2017