Raj, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.11.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16445 of 2017 1.Raj 2.Manosingh ... Petitioners / accused 1 & 2 -Vs1. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Panakudi Police Station, Panakudi, Thirunelveli District.

... 1st Respondent /Complainant 2.Krishnan ... 2nd respondent / De facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to C.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Syed Ali For R-1 : Mr.K.S.Duraipandian Additional Public Prosecutor For R-2 : Mr.V.Sukumar

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition is filed to call for the records relating to C.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, and quash the same.

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

3. The petitioners are the accused nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Proceedings in C.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor . On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent / de facto complainant, a case was originally registered by the first respondent police in Crime No.374 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC against the first petitioner and for the offences

under Sections 294(b), 325, 506(ii) of IPC against the second petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent police has filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.110 of 2016. Though there are four accused in this case, this petition is filed only by accused nos. 1 and 2.

4. It appears that parties viz., petitioners and the second respondent / de facto complainant have settled their dispute amicably out of Court, at the instigation of the elders and well wishers and they have also entered into a compromise. A joint compromise memo signed by the parties concerned in the presence of their respective counsels is produced before this Court.

5. As per the joint compromise memo, the petitioners and the second respondent, who have appeared before this Court have stated in unequivocal terms that the Joint Compromise Memo was signed by them on their own will and volition. The identities 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 the Compromise Memo, the de facto complainant has agreed to withdraw the criminal case and the petitioners and the second respondent have requested this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.

7. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence, on the basis of the compromise memo signed by the parties, the Criminal Original petition is allowed and the proceedings pending in C.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor is quashed in so far as the petitioners / accused nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. The Joint Compromise Memo dated 27.11.2017 signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To Enclosure : Joint Compromise Memo (Xerox Copy) 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.

2.The Inspector of Police, Panakudi Police Station, Panakudi, Thirunelveli District.

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

+1cc to M/S.N.Syed Ali, Advocate SR.No. 90367 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16445 of 2017 30.11.2017 trp JM/SV MMS/SAR 1/15.12.2017/3P/5C