Ravi @ Ravikumar, v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.04.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4137 of 2017 1.Ravi @ Ravikumar 2.Nelson @ Leluson 3.Prabhakaran 4.Partheeban : Petitioners -Vs1. The Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
In Crime No.394 of 2016.
2. Ramesh : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Cr.No.394 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Balamurugan For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent No.2 : Mr.D.Senthilkumar
O R D E R
On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent has registered a case in Crime No.394 of 2016 on 31.10.2016 for offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners herein, challenging which, the petitioners and the defacto complainant are before this Court on the ground that they have arrived at a compromise.
2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, M/s.J.Lysa, Sub-Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station is present. The defacto complainant is present and the petitioners are also present 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 (Criminal side) through M/s.J.Lysa, Sub-Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station.
3. The petitioners and the second respondent have filed a joint compromise memo dated 06.04.2017, wherein, it is stated as follows: "The Petitioners as well as the 2nd Respondent arrived at compromise and amicably settled the issue https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
with the help of Family elders and relatives. Further, the petitioners and the 2nd Respondent are belonging to the same area and the matter has been amicably settled. Therefore the 2nd Respondent/defacto complainant will not pursue this same cause in future and he has no objection for quashing Crime No.394 of 2016 on the file of the 1st Respondent Police and accepting the compromise in this case filed against the petitioners and there is no coercion or compulsion for compromising the same."
4. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.394 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent, in respect of all the accused including those who are not before this Court are hereby quashed. The joint compromise memo dated 06.04.2017 shall form part of this order.
5. At the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners themselves voluntarily came forward to contribute some amount for the purpose of removal of Seemai Karuvelam Trees.
6. Accepting the submission, the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each to the credit of Indian Bank Savings Account No.6514082295, operated by the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, for the purpose of removal of Seemai Karuvelam Trees, within a period of two weeks from today. After making payment, a copy of the challan shall be furnished to the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Cour, Madurai. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Encl.: Xerox copy of Compromise Memo To
1. The Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Copy To:- The Registrar (Administration) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+ 1 CC TO Mr.S.BALAMURUGAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 51326 SML TE/MR : 20/04/2017 : 2P/5C Order made in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.4137 of 2017 Dated: 11.04.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/