Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/16524/2016ordered

Muthumariappan v. The Inspector Of Police

2016-09-12Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.09.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16524 of 2016 Muthumariappan .. Petitioner/sole accused -vs1.

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.462/2015) .. 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.

Rangan .. 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Crime No.462 of 2015 on the file of the 1st Respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Vijayagopal For R1 :

Mr.K.Anbarasan Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.P.Kalyana Ramachandran

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered in Crime No.462 of 2015 dated 02.12.2015, on the file of the 1st respondent herein.

2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.462 of 2015 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC, on the file of the 1st respondent police, has been registered against the petitioner/sole accused.

3.The second respondent, who is the brother-in-law of the petitioner, filed a complaint against him alleging that when he questioned about the illegal intimacy of one Muthupetchi with the petitioner, a wordy quarrel arose between both parties and the petitioner threatened him using filthy language.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner/sole accused and the second respondent/defacto complainant, appeared in person 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.

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

5. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the matter is now compromised by the elders of the family.

6. Further, learned counsel appearing for both parties filed a joint memo of compromise dated 29.08.2016, duly stating that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has no objection to quash the above case in Crime No.462 of 2015 pending on the file of the first respondent.

7. Hence, in view of joint memo of compromise dated 29.08.2016, this Court is of the opinion that it can safely be said that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.462 of 2015 dated 29.08.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police in respect of the petitioner/sole accused is hereby quashed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.

The Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai District.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16524 of 2016 12.09.2016 Encl: Copy of Compromise Memo pjl SD/SK-SKN/28.09.2016/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/