Muniyasamy Thevar, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.02.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.17965 and 17966 of 2017 and 301 of 2018 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17965 of 2017 1.Muniyasamy Thevar 2.Sundaramurugan 3.Ramamoorthy 4.R.R.Ramasamy 5.Saravanan 6.Murugan @ Rajini Murugan 7.Nagarathinam

...Petitioners/Accused 1 to 7

(In Crime No.48 of 2013) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Nambuvel of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings in the FIR in Cr.No.48 of 2013 on the file of the Temple Police Station, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District, based on the compromise entered between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. (Prayer amended vide order of this Court dated 05.02.2018 made in Crl.M.P.(MD).No.122 of 2018 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17965 of 2017) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17966 of 2017 1.Muniyasamy Thevar 2.Nagarathinam 3.Muthuramalingam 4.Ramamoorthy 5.Saravanan 6.Murugan S/o.Vellaichamy 7.Murugan S/O.Irulandi 8.Vadivel

9.Jayaraman 10.Thirupathi 11.Murugan @ Rajini Murugan 12.R.R.Ramasamy 13.Thangarasu 14.Sundaramurugan 15.Balamurugan @ Arippu Bala @ Bala ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 15 (In Crime No.47 of 2013) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Nambuvel of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings in the FIR in Cr.No.47 of 2013 on the file of the Temple Police Station, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District, based on the compromise entered between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. (Prayer amended vide order of this Court dated 05.02.2018 made in Crl.M.P.(MD).No.121 of 2018 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17966 of 2017) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.301 of 2018 1.Muniyasamy Thevar 2.Nagarathinam 3.Muthuramalingam 4.Ramamoorthy 5.Saravanan 6.Murugan S/o.Vellaichamy 7.Murugan, S/o.Irulandi 8.Vadivel 9.Jayaraman 10.Thirupathi 11.Murugan @ Rajini Murugan 12.R.R.Ramasamy 13.Patchammal 14.Thangarasu

15.Murugan S/o.Sappani Thevar 16.Balamurugan @ Arippu Bala @ Bala

...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 16

Ramanathapuram District, (In Crime No.49 of 2013) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.T.M.Kannan of Criminal Procedure, to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District based on the Compromise entered between the Petitioners and the defacto complainant.

In all Crl.O.Ps:

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Senthilkumar For R-1 : Mr.O.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate For R-2 : Mr.K.Palmurugan *** COMMON ORDER Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.17965 and 17966 of 2017 have been filed to quash the proceedings in the FIRs in Cr.Nos.48 and 47 of 2013 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Temple Police Station, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.301 of 2018 has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, as against the petitioners in all the petitions, based on the compromise entered between the petitioners and the defacto complainant.. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 3.

The petitioners in Crl.OP(MD) No.17965 of 2017 are accused Nos.1 to 7 in Crime No.48 of 2013, the petitioners in Crl.OP(MD) No.17966 of 2017 are accused Nos.1 to 15 in Crime No.47 of 2013 and similarly, the petitioners in Crl.OP(MD) No.301 of 2018 are the accused Nos.1 to 16 in C.C.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. The second respondent in all the petitions is the defacto complainant.

4.The complaint in Crime No.48 of 2013 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 427 & 506(ii) I.P.C on the file of the first respondent police in Crl.O.P.No.17965 of 2017 and the complaint in Crime No.47 of 2013 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 427 & 506(ii) I.P.C on the file of the first respondent police in Crl.O.P.No.17966 of 2017. Similarly, the complaint in Crime No.49 of 2013 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 323, 427 & 506(ii) I.P.C on the file of the first respondent police in Crl.O.P.No.301 of 2018 and the first respondent has investigated the matter and filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram against all the accused. Thereafter, the said case was taken on file in C.C.No.79 of 2017.

5.It appears that at the advise of the elders and friends, the petitioners and second respondent in all the cases have agreed to compromise the matter, out of Court. Joint Compromise Memos, dated 08.10.2017 and 12.10.2017, are also filed to that effect. As per the Joint Compromise Memos, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent, in all the cases, has given his consent to quash the entire proceedings in FIRs in Cr.Nos.48 and 47 of 2013 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Temple Police Station, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District and to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, as against the petitioners in all the petitions. 6.

The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed in the Joint Compromise Memos 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 identities of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate through the first respondent police.

7.Having regard to the agreement made between the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping these matters pending. As per the Compromise Memos signed by the parties, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent in all the cases have agreed to quash the proceedings in FIRs in Cr.Nos.48 and 47 of 2013 and C.C.No.79 of 2017. Hence the criminal proceedings in FIRs in Cr.Nos.48 and 47 of 2013 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Temple Police Station, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District and the charge sheet in C.C.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, as against the petitioners herein in all the petitions are quashed and the Joint Compromise Memos signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

8. Accordingly, these Criminal Original petitions are allowed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar (*)JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO XEROX COPY IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram.

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

+3ccs to Mr.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate, SR.Nos.46374 to 46376 vs RL/7C/5P/KK/SAR4/9/3/2018 Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.17965 and 17966 of 2017 and 301 of 2018 05.02.2018