Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/6997/2017withdrawn dismissed

K.Jeevanatham v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-06-12Honourable Mr Justice P. N. Prakash2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.06.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6997 of 2017 K.Jeevanatham : Petitioner/Accused -vs1.State through the Inspector of Police, Sikkal Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. :1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Chithravelu :2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in Crime No.19 of 2016 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and allow this criminal original petition.

For Petitioners :

Mr.S.Muthukumar For Respondent No.1 :

Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondent No.2 :

Mr.T.Balakrishnan

O R D E R

On the complaint lodged by one A.Muthu/2nd respondent, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2016 , for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC against the petitioner, challenging which, the accused and the defacto complainant are before this Court for quashing the case in Crime NO.19 of 2016 against the petitioner on the ground that they have arrived at a compromise.

2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Sikkal Police Station, Ramanathapuram 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 the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Sikkal Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

3. The petitioner and the second respondent have filed a joint compromise memo dated 06.06.2017, in which, it has been stated as follows:

"3.It is now submitted that now there was compromise made between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent a compromise memo also filed, the same also recorded.

4.It is respectfully submit that the fact being so this petitioner filed this petition to quash the FIR in Crime NO.19 of 2016 on the ground of compromise."

4. In view of the joint compromise memo dated 06.06.2017, 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 FIR in Crime No.19 of 2016, pending on the file of the respondent police in respect of all the accused are hereby quashed. The joint compromise memo dated 06.06.2017 shall form part of this order. However, the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one Thousand only), to the Curator, Gandhi Museum, Madurai, within a period of two weeks from today. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

Encl:Xerox copy of compromise memo 1.The Inspector of Police, Sikkal Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

3.The Curator, Gandhi Museum, Madurai.

+1 cc to Mr.S.Muthukumar , Advocate in SR.No. 59629 RR AE/MR/SAR1/21.06.2017/2P/5C Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6997 of 2017 Dated: 12.06.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/