Veerammal, v. The Inspector Of Police,

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.17079 of 2016 1.Veerammal 2.Rajan 3.Paunraj 4.Raman .. Petitioners/A1 to A4 -vs1.

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

(CC No.185/2011) .. 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.

Seenivasan .. 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C.No.185 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Usilampatti, in Crime No.88 of 2008 on the file of Usilampatti Town Police Station, Usilampatti, Madurai District and quash the same. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Ragavendran For R1 :

Mr.K.Anbarasan Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered in C.C.No.185 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Usilampatti, in Crime No.88 of 2008, on the file of the 1st respondent herein.

2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.88 of 2008 for the alleged offences under Sections 452, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, on the file of the 1st respondent police, has been registered against the petitioners/A1 to A4.

3.The second respondent, who is the tenant of the petitioner, filed a complaint against the petitioner and other accused alleging that they have threatened him to vacate his office for which he is paying rent regularly for so many years to the petitioner's husband and after his death to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/A1 to A4 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.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the matter is now compromised between the parties out of the Court.

6. Further, learned counsel appearing for both parties filed a joint memo of compromise dated 07.09.2016, 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 C.C.No.185 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Usilampatti, in Crime No.88 of 2008 pending on the file of the first respondent.

7. Hence, in view of joint memo of compromise dated 07.09.2016, 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 C.C.No.185 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Usilampatti, in Crime No.88 of 2008 on the file of the 1st respondent police in respect of the petitioners/A1 to A4 is hereby quashed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CSII) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, Madurai 2.The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, Usilampatti, Madurai District.

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

+One cc to Mr.R.Ragavendran, Advocate, SR.No.51692 PJL RL/5C/2P/AAL/MPA/29/9/2016 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17079 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12.09.2016