← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/20784/2016allowed

Durairaj v. The Sub Inspector Of Police,

2016-11-02Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.11.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20784 of 2016 Durairaj .. Petitioner/sole accused -vs1.The State rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Abiramam Police Station, Ramnad District.

(Crime No.154 of 2016) .. Respondent/Complainant 2.Karpagam .. Respondent/defacto complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records for the First Information Report in Crime No.154 of 2016 dated 01.10.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Uthayakumar For Respondent : Mr.P.Kannithevan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.154 of 2016 dated 01.10.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police.

2. It is seen that a case has been filed against the petitioner in under Sections 294(B) and 506(ii) of I.P.C., Section 4 of Tami Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, on the file of the 1st respondent police.

3. The case of the prosecution is that due to the land dispute, the 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner stating that when the defacto complainant was doing the agricultural work at her field, the petitioner entered into a wordy quarrel and threatened her with dire consequences; based on the compliant, the respondent police has registered FIR against the petitioner in Crime No.154 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(B) and 506(ii) of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

I.P.C., and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner and the second respondent, 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.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the matter is now compromised out of the court.

6. Further, both parties filed a joint compromise memo, dated 24.10.2016, duly stating that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, she has no objection to withdraw the case in Crime No.154 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police.

7. Hence, in view of the joint compromise memo dated 24.10.2016, this Court is of the opinion that it can safely be said that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.154 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police, is hereby quashed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar PJL To 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Abiramam Police Station, Ramnad District.

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

+1CC to Mr.A.Uthayakumar, Advocate Sr.No.64987 GJM/SS3/SAR(AE)-14.11.16-2p-4C Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20784 of 2016 02.11.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/