Arulmani v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.08.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15842 of 2016 Arulmani ... Petitioner/sole accused -vs1.

The Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Tirunelvelli District.

(Crime No.131/2016) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.

Kathiresan ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Crime No.131 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of police, Alangulam Police Station, Tirunelveli, and quash the same on the ground of compromise forthwith.

For Petitioners :

Mr.S.Palanivelayutham For R1 :

Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 :

Mr.H.Raja ******

O R D E R

Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

2. A case in Crime No.131 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) IPC by the 1st respondent against the petitioners herein.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.04.2016, when the de-facto complainant was standing near the bus stand, it is alleged that the petitioner demanded Rs.200/- from the de-facto complainant and forcibly got it by threatening him.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent police.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the parties filed a joint memo of compromise dated 08.08.2016, duly stating that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, under which the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above case in Crime No.131 of 2016 pending on the file of the first respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.1. From the compromise, this Court can safely infer that the chances of the defacto complainant deposing against the petitioner is less and therefore, the chances of conviction of the accused is bleak.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 held that the High Court can quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so requires, i.e. there would be almost no chance of conviction. Thus, B.S.Joshi's case provided a creative solution for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Therefore, considering, a) the nature of relationship between the parties, b) nature of offences alleged c) the settlement arrived at and d) the ultimate result of the prosecution, this Court is of the view that quashing of the First Information Report will be in the ends of justice and accordingly, the same is ordered to be quashed.

8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.131 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent in respect of the petitioner are hereby quashed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub-Asistant Registrar To:

1.The Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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

+One cc to Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, Advocate, SR.No.48183 RR RL/4C/2P/SS3/15/9/2016 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15842 of 2016 29.08.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/