Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/8841/2017allowed

Ponsaran v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-07-20Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.07.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8841 of 2017 Ponsaran ... Petitioner / Sole Accused -Vs1. State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

(In Crime No.556 of 2015) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. J.Gowthami ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant Prayer:Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No.556 of 2015 on the file of first respondent police station and quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Babu Jaganath For R-1 :

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

For R-2 :

Mr.D.Balamuruga Pandi.

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No.556 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the same.

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

3. Based on the complaint given by the second respondent / defacto complainant, before the first respondent, a case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.556 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women from Harassment Act, 2002.

4. It appears that, pursuant to the complaint, the parties have entered into a Joint Compromise Memo, dated 15.02.2017, on the advice of the close relatives and resolved their disputes https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

amicably outside the Court and the said Joint Compromise Memo dated 15.02.2017 was duly signed by both the parties. The second respondent / de-facto complainant has no objection to quash the proceedings pending before the first respondent in Crime No.556 of 2015.

5. Today, the parties appeared before this Court and submitted the Joint Compromise Memo dated 15.02.2017, 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 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 specific terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, dated 15.02.2017, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence, based on the Joint Compromise Memo dated 15.02.2017, signed by the parties, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First Information Report in Crime No.556 of 2015, on the file of the first respondent is quashed in toto and the Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To (Encl. Xerox copy of Joint Compromise memo) The Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

+1cc to M/S. R.BABU JAGANATH, Advocate, SR.No.66702. +1cc to M/S. D.BALAMURUGUPANDI, Advocate, SR.No.67208. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8841 of 2017 20.07.2017 cmr SDS/KKR/SAR 3/16.08.2017/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/