A. Lakshmi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.12.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17654 of 2017 1.A. Lakshmi 2.Baskar ... Petitioners/accused 1 & 3 -Vs1. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ramji Nagar Police Station, Trichy District.

... 1st Respondent /Complainant 2.Pandurangan ... 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 the PRC.No.24 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr. M.Maheswaran For R-1 : Mr.K.S. Duraipandian Additional Public Prosecutor For R-2 : Mr.C. Susikumar

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition is filed to call for the records relating to the PRC.No.24 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy 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 3 in Criminal Proceedings in PRC.No. 124 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent / de facto complainant, a case was registered by the first respondent police in Crime No.124 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC @ 307 of IPC, against the petitioners. Thereafter, the first respondent police has filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy, and the same was taken on file in PRC.No. 24 of 2016 .

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

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. 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 PRC.No. 24 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy.

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 PRC.No. 24 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy is quashed in toto. The Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To Enclosure : Joint Compromise Memo (Xerox Copy) 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy 2.The Inspector of Police, Ramji Nagar Police Station, Trichy District.

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

+1cc to M/S.R.Maheswaran, Advocate SR.No. 94480 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17654 of 2017 21.12.2017 trp JM/JC/SAR 1/12.01.2018/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/