Karupu @ Karuppusami v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.06.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7954 of 2017 1.Karupu @ Kartuppusami 2.Venkadesh @ Mohanraman 3.Aananth @ Chellagovindan : Petitioners -Vs1. The Inspector of Police, Tirunagar Police Station, Madurai District.
In Crime No.4 of 2012.
2.Maheswaran : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records in C.C.No.425 of 2012, dated 04.12.2012 in Crime No.4 of 2012, dated 05.01.2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sivaprakash For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent No.2 : Mr.G.Pandi **********
O R D E R
On the complaint lodged by Maheswaran, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2012 for offences under Sections 418, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and after completing the investigation, have filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.425 of 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai. Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, they are before this Court with the present petition.
2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.P.Pandi Durai, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirunagar Police Station,
is present. The defacto complainant is present and the petitioners 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.P.Pandi Durai, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirunagar Police Station.
3. The petitioners and the second respondent have filed a joint compromise memo, wherein, it is stated as follows: "3.I submit that the allegation stated in the FIR that due to family dispute between the defacto complainants with the petitioners, the petitioners used filthy language and thereafter attacked him in dire consequences. Therefore the 2nd respondent lodged the report and which was registered in Crime No.150 of 2013, dated 14.10.2013.
4. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent lodged the report before the 1st respondent and which was also registered. Therefore due to intervention of the family elders, the matter entered into compromise.
5. I submit that all the offences which are mentioned in the FIR are simply in nature. The 2nd respondent is relative. Due to intervention of family elders, we are entered into the compromise. In this circumstances, the 2nd respondent not willing to proceed further against me and others."
4. In view of the above, 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.425 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, in respect of all the accused including those who are not before this Court are hereby quashed. The joint compromise memo shall form part of this order. However, the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Committee, attached to the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, within a period of two weeks from today.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To Encl:Xerox copy of Compromise memo
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police, Tirunagar Police Station, Madurai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 cc to Mr.S.Sivaprakash , Advocate in SR.No. 62450 SML AE/MR KKR/SAR3/11.07.2017/3P/6C Order made in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.7954 of 2017 Dated: 28.06.2017