Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/5197/2025allowed

King @ Maria John Kingston v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2025-03-20Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL and Crl.M.P(MD)No.3744 of 2025 King @ Maria John Kingston ... Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Koodankulam, Tirunelveli District.

Crime No. 193/2013.

2. Uthaya Arul Jeyaraj ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petitions have been filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records pertaining to the case registered in Impugned Charge sheet in PRC No. 45 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District in connection with the Crime No. 193 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Arun, For R1 : Mr.M.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.S.Pradeep

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records pertaining to PRC No. 45 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 431, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No. 193 of 2013 and quash the same.

2. According to the petitioner, based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the police has registered FIR in Cr.No. 193 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 431, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act.

2/5

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel on both sides represented that during pendency of the case in PRC No. 45 of 2020, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and to that effect, they have entered into a compromise and the same was filed before this Court.

4. Today, the defacto-complainant and the accused are present and the Court enquired about the terms of compromise. The defactocomplainant represented that they entered into a compromise. A compromise memo, dated 20.03.2025 signed by the parties and their respective counsels, is also filed before this Court.

5. This Court has perused the terms of the compromise memo.

6. Considering the nature of the offences and the parties have also entered into a compromise, it is appropriate to allow this petition.

7. Recording the said compromise memo, this petition is allowed and PRC No. 45 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3/5

Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

20.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District

2. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Koodankulam, Tirunelveli District.

Crime No. 193/2013.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J.

LR 20.03.2025 5/5