Periyasamy v. The Sub-Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.06.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7792 of 2017 1.Periyasamy 2.Manimaran : Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 -vs1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kattuputhur Police Station, Thottiyam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

(Crime No.90 of 2017) : 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Amutha : 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer:Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for records pertaining to the F.I.R. in Crime NO.90 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Vadivelan For Respondents : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R.1 : Mr.S.Karthick Subramanian for R.2

O R D E R

On the complaint lodged by Amutha, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.90 of 2017 under Sections 366 I.P.C., against Periyasamy and Manimaran for quashing which, both parties are present before this Court on the ground that they have arrived at the compromise. It appears that in the meantime, Amutha got married to Periyasamy.

2.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.K.Sekar, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Kattuputhur Police Station, is present. Both parties and the parents of Amutha are also present before this Court and their identifications were

verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) through Mr.K.Sekar, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Kattuputhur Police Station.

3. The petitioners and the second respondent have filed a joint compromise memo, wherein, they have stated as follows: "2.The Petitioners and the 2nd respondent further submit that during the pendency of the proceeding, at the intervention of the elders, both the parties and village head men of their village have sat together, in which an amicable conclusion has been arrived at and as one part of a conclusion, the 2nd respondent has agreed to say no objection for the purpose of quashing the present criminal proceeding.

3.The Petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent jointly submits that such compromise has been taken place purely with an intention to settle the issue among them and it is purely voluntary by the parties concerned. Hence, in order to avoid further ordeal of trial before the Trial Court, they are preferred to be present before this Hon'ble Court whenever it is required.

This Hon'ble Court by taking into consideration of the above said aspects with regard to the compromise and in the interest of the parties, can leniently look into the present issue, as such the prior sought for by the petitioner can be allowed." 4.In view of the joint memo of compromise, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending.

5.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties and the entire proceedings in Cr.No.90 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police are hereby quashed on condition that the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each (Totally Rs.500/- x 2 = Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost to the Chellamuthu Trust, K.K.Nagar, Madurai, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a memo in the Registry. The joint compromise memo shall form part of this order.

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

To:

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kattuputhur Police Station, Thottiyam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

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

+1cc to M/S. T.VADIVELAN, Advocate, SR.No.62277. (Joint compromise memo is enclosed).

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7792 of 2017 27.06.2017 ssl SDS/SKN:RSK/SAR 2/03.07.2017/3P/4C