Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/17118/2016ordered

Ganesa Murugan, v. The Inspector Of Police,

2016-09-14Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.09.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17118 of 2016 1.Ganesa Murugan 2.Madasamy @ Raja 3.Chella Pandiyan @ Selvam 4.Mari Durai 5.Mariselvam .. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 -Vs1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Tuticorin District, Crime NO.567/2016, ... Respondent/Complainant 2.M.Mariyammal ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in Crime No.567 of 2016, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Tuticorin District and quash the same.

For Petitioners: Mr.K.Prabhu For Respondents: Mr.K.Anbarasan Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R.1 : Mr.J.Senthil Kumar for R.2

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.567 of 2016, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Tuticorin District and quash the same.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

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

3. Based on the complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant, a case has been registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.567 of 2016 for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 435, 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, on the file of the first respondent. The said F.I.R. is challenged before this Court.

4. When the matter is called today, both the petitioners as well as the second respondent are present before this Court and they categorically made a statement that the dispute between them have been settled amicably. They also filed a memo of compromise memo dated 14.09.2016 duly signed by both parties and counter signed by their respective Counsel.

5. In view of the statements made by the parties and the compromise memo filed by them, no fruitful purpose will be achieved to proceed further in this matter.

6. In view of that, the impugned F.I.R. in Cr.No.567 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) Encl:Xerox copy of Compromise memo.

/True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

1.The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Tuticorin District.

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

+1cc to Mr.K.Prabhu, Advocate SR.No.52308 ssl sm:GSV-PM:SAR I:22/09/2016:2P/4C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17118 of 2016 14.09.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/