Gubandran v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.12.2017 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL OP(MD)No.17743 of 2017 Gubandran ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.
1.State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Eriodu Police Station, Dindigul District.
(Crime No.317 of 2017) ... 1st Respondent /Complainant 2.Rajalakshmi ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the First Information Report in Crime No.317 of 2017 dated 18.11.2017 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Eriodu Police Station, Dindigul District, pursuant to the compromise arrived at by the parties.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Pugalendhi For R-1 : Mr.K.S.Durai Pandiyan, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For R-2 : Mr.A.Balakrishnan
O R D E R
This Criminal Original petition is filed for quashing the First Information Report in Crime No.317 of 2017, dated 18.11.2017 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Eriodu Police Station, Dindigul District, pursuant to the compromise arrived at by the parties.
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.317 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.317 of 2017, dated 18.11.2017, for the offences under Sections 286 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.
4. It appears that the parties, namely, the petitioner and the second respondent have settled their dispute amicably out of Court, at the intervention of elders and relatives. The parties https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
also have entered into a compromise. A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 18.12.2017, signed by the petitioner and the de-facto complainant in the presence of their respective counsels is produced before this Court. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the defacto complainant has agreed for quashing the First Information Report in Crime No.317 of 2017 dated 18.11.2017 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Eriodu Police Station, Dindigul District.
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.317 of 2017, dated 18.11.2017 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Eriodu Police Station, Dindigul District, is quashed in toto. The Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Writs) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To Enclosure : Joint Compromise Memo (Xerox Copy) 1.The Inspector of Police, Eriodu Police Station, Dindigul District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1cc to M/S.S.Pugalendhi, Advocate SR.No. 94568 CRL OP(MD)No.17743 of 2017 22.12.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pmu JM/SKN/SAR 2/12.01.2018/2P/4C