Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/16766/2017disposed of

Sheik Abdullah v. The Inspector Of Police

2018-01-12Honourable Mr Justice P. Rajamanickam2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.01.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 16766 of 2017 1.Sheik Abdullah 2.S.Rahuman Sha 3.Najima 4.Parveen Nisha : Petitioners/A1 to A4 -Vs1. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tallakulam, Madurai City.

(Cr.No.36 of 2017) : 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. Sabeena : 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.36 of 2017 dated 17.08.2017 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Srinivasan For R1 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R2 : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.36 of 2017 dated 17.08.2017, on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the same.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3.The petitioners are accused No. 1 to 4 in Crime No.36 of 2017. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 406 and 506(i) IPC.

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

4.It appears that the petitioners and the second respondent, namely, the de-facto complainant have settled their dispute amicably out of Court and they have also entered into a compromise, on the advise of elders and their relatives. 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 no objection for quashing the FIR in Cr.No. 36 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent.

5.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 Government Advocate (Crl.side) 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 purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence the FIR in Cr.No.36 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent / The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tallakulam, Madurai City, Madurai, 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 (W) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Encl.: Xerox copy of Compromise Memo To

1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tallakulam, Madurai City.

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

+ 1 CC TO Mr.R.SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 42759 + 1 CC TO Mr.S.M.A.JINNAH, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 42353 MM TE/KKR/SAR-3 : 07/02/2018 : 2P/5C Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 16766 of 2017 12.01.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/