Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/8555/2017allowed

S.Veerapandi, v. The Inspector Of Police,

2017-07-14Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.07.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8555 of 2017 S.Veerapandi ... Petitioner/1st Accused -Vs1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Sathankulam Police Station, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondent/Complainant

2. M.Sankar ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.129 of 2012 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as against the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balakrishnan For R-1 :

Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate(Crl.side).

For R-2 :

Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman ***

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition is filed for quashing the First Information Report in Crime No.129 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent as against this petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent.

3. On the basis of complaint given by the second respondent, a case was registered in Crime No.129 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Pursuant to the complaint, the petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant have entered into a compromise, dated 04.07.2017, on the advise of the elders and well wishers. It is stated that the criminal complaint was due to ego problem. Since the parties have agreed to compromise the issues, the dispute has come to an end and the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the entire allegations against the petitioner and to give consent for quashing the First Information Report against the petitioner.

5. The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that the Joint Compromise Memo was signed by them on their own will and volition. The identity of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties concerned before this Court. The identity of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) through the first respondent police.

6. Having regard to the circumstances stated above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence, the Criminal Original petition is allowed and the First Information Report in Crime No.129 of 2012, on the file of the first respondent is quashed in respect of the petitioner only and the Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Encl: Joint Compromise Memo dated 04.07.2017 To

1. The Inspector of Police, Sathankulam Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

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

PMU PSM/KKR-MR/SAR2/26.07.2017/2P/3C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8555 of 2017 14.07.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/