Ramachanderan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.11.2017 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL.O.P(MD)No.16109 of 2017 Ramachandran, S/o.Thangavel Kattaraimettu Street, Woraiyur, Trichy.

... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.

1. State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy District.

(Crime No.1379 of 2017) ... Respondent/Complainant

2. Pitchaiyammal ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records and quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.1379 of 2017 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy City against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar For R-1 : Mr.K.S.Durai Pandiyan, Additional Public Prosecutor.

For R-2 : Mr.A.Karthick

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition is filed for quashing the First Information Report in Crime No.1379 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3.The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1379 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent/de-facto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.1379 of 2017, dated 09.11.2017, for the alleged offences under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 and 506(i) of I.P.C. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. After registration of the First Information Report, it appears that the parties, namely, the petitioner and the second respondent have settled their dispute amicably out of Court, at the intervention of relatives and elders. It is stated that the petitioner and the second respondent are relatives. The parties also have entered into a compromise. A Joint Compromise Memo signed by the petitioner and the de-facto complainant in the presence of their respective counsels is produced before this Court. As per the memo of compromise, the second respondent has expressed her intention not to pursue the case further and she has also prayed for quashing the First Information Report in Crime No.1379 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent.

5.

The parties, namely, the petitioner and the second respondent 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. Having regard to 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, on the basis of the Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties, the Criminal Original petition is allowed and the First Information Report in Crime No.1379 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed in toto. The Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Encl.: Xerox copy of Compromise Memo To

1. The Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy District.

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

PMU TE/SV-MMS/SAR-2 : 18/12/2017 : 2P/3C CRL OP(MD)No.16109 of 2017 24.11.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/