Somasundaram v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.06.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6539 of 2017 1.Somasundaram 2.Sundar : Petitioners -vs1.The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City.

in Crime No.1080 of 2012, 2.V.Nataraj : Respondents Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in C.C.No.3/2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli and quash the same.

For Petitioners :

Mr.M.Sankar For Respondent No.1 :

Mr.T.Mohan Addl. Public Prosecutor For Respondent No.2 :

Mr.S.Arumugaraj

O R D E R

On the complaint lodged by one V.Nataraj/2nd respondent, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.1080 of 2012 and after completing the investigation, has filed a final report in C.C.No.3 of 2014, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 365 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, challenging which, the accused and the defacto complainant are before this Court for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.3 of 2014 against the petitioners on the ground that they have arrived at a compromise.

2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.S.Shanmugaraj, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli District, is present in Court. The defacto complainant is present and the accused 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 Mr.S.Shanmugaraj, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

3. The petitioners and the second respondent have filed a joint compromise memo dated 01.06.2017, in which, it has been stated as follows:

"We the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are ended a compromise in the presence of both well wishers of their respective family members out of court. We the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are accepted to enter into compromise with regard to the said case in Cr.No.1080 of 2012 in C.C.No.3 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Tirunelveli. Now, we the petitioners and the 2nd respondent jointly filed this compromise quash petition along with this joint compromise memo. We the petitioners and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, both are accepted and there is no further claim, if any."

4. In normal circumstances, an offence under Section 365 IPC cannot be quashed. However, it is seen that the defacto complainant and the accused are close friends as could be seen even in the chargesheet filed by the police and in view of the joint compromise memo dated 01.06.2017, 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 C.C.No.3 of 2014, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, in respect of all the accused are hereby quashed. The joint compromise memo dated 01.06.2017 shall form part of this order. However, the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand only) each, to the Curator, Gandhi Museum, Madurai, within a period of two weeks from today.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

1.The Judicial Magistrate, No.I Tirunelveli.

2.The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City.

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

4.The Curator, Gandhi Museum, Madurai.

+1cc to Mr.M.Shankar, Advocate SR.No.58932 +1cc to Mr.S.Arumugaraj,Advocate,SR.58933 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6539 of 2017 Dated: 05.06.2017 RR KK/SV/SAR4/14.06.2017/3P-7C