Thangavel,(Wrongly Mentioned v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.07.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8565 of 2017 1.Thangavel 2.Petchiammal(Wrongly mentioned Krishnammal @ Petchiammal in FIR) 3.Petchi (Wrongly mentioned Petchiammal W/o. Paulpandi in FIR) 4.Sakthiyendran(Wrongly mentioned Sakthi in FIR ) ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 -vs1. The State represented by , The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.602 of 2014). ...Respondent/Complainant 2.Malaisamy ... Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.602 of 2014 on the file of the 1st respondent Police. For Petitioners :

Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah For R1 :

Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate(Crl.side) For R2 :

Mr.P.Prakash

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in Cr.No.602 of 2014 pending on the file of the first respondent Police, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.

2. It is seen that a case in Cr.No.602 of 2014 was registered for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC against the petitioners/A1to A4.

3. It is submitted that due to persuasion by elders of village of the parties, the parties have entered into compromise outside the court and they have decided to close the case on the basis of compromise. They have filed a joint compromise memo dated 04.07.2017 duly stating that the dispute was on account of wordy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

quarrel between the parties and since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement out of court by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed to quash the First Information Report in Cr.No.602 of 2014 pending on the file of the first respondent Police.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/A1 to A4 and the second respondent, appeared in person and they have submitted that they have signed in the compromise memo out of their own will and volition. The identifications of the parties, who signed in the compromise memo, were also verified by this Court through authenticated documents produced before this Court. Apart from that, identity of those persons are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocat (Crl.side) through the first respondent police.

5.Considering the nature of allegations and in view of joint memo of compromise dated 04.07.2017, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the First Information Report pending. Therefore, the First Information Report in Cr.No.602 of 2014 pending on the file of the first respondent Police, in respect of the petitioners/A1 to A4 is hereby quashed.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The joint compromise memo dated 04.07.2017, shall form part of this order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

Encl: Xerox copy of Compromise memo 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Nazareth Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

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

+1 cc to Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah , Advocate in SR.No. 64087 CM/gsp AE/MR KKR/SAR1/17.07.2017/2P/4C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8565 of 2017 07.07.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/