Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/538/2017allowed

S.Vinod Kumar @ Sakthivel v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-01-19Honourable Mr Justice G. Chockalingam2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:19.01.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Crl.O.P.(MD).No.538 of 2017 1.S.Vinod Kumar @ Sakthivel 2.B.Raj Kumar 3.K.Ravi 4.S.Vellimalai .. Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 vs.

1.State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.968/2016) .. Respondent / Complainant 2.R.Rama Lakshmana Raja .. Respondent / Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records and quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.968 of 2016, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station, Madurai District against the petitioners.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar For R1 : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.P.Saravanakumar

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.968 of 2016, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station, Madurai District against the petitioners.

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

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that based on the complaint given by the second respondent/de facto complainant, a case has been registered against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

petitioners in Cr.No.968 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC., on the file of the first respondent police.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, both the petitioners as well as the second respondent are 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 and they categorically made a statement that the dispute between them have been settled amicably. They also filed a joint memo of compromise dated 10.01.2017, duly signed by both parties and counter signed by their respective Counsel.

5. In view of the above, since the dispute between the parties was amicably settled out of Court, there is no necessity to keep this case pending. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.968 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC., on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed. The joint memo of compromise shall form a part of this order. Sd/ Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar.

To Herewith enclosed the xerox copy of Joint Compromise Memo 1.The Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station, Madurai District.

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

+4CC to M/S.T.Senthil Kumar, Advocate, SR.No. 3317 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.538 of 2017 19.01.2017 PJL AM/SKN/SAR-3/23.01.2017/2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/