Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/901/2017disposed of

N. Prabhakaran v. K. Raja Sekar

2017-01-30Honourable Mr Justice G. Chockalingam2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.01.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Crl.O.P.(MD).No.901 of 2017 1.N.Prabhakaran, 2.Sasikumar, 3.Karthick alias Karthikeyan ... Petitioners/A1 to A3 -Vs1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Karivalamvanthanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

... 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. K.Rajasekar ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.886 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sankarankovil and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondents : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 Mr.D.Venkatesh for R2

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the case in C.C.No.886 of 2014, on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sankarankovil.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent and the Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the first respondent.

3.Based on the complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant, a case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.185 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC., on the file of the first respondent and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.886 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sankarankovil. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, both the petitioner as well as the second respondent are appeared in person 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 (Crl. Side) through the respondent police and they categorically made a statement that the dispute between them have been settled amicably. They also filed a memo of compromise dated 19.01.2017 duly signed by both parties and counter signed by their respective Counsel.

5. Considering the submissions made by the parties and the compromise memo filed by them, no fruitful purpose will be achieved to proceed further in this matter.

6. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No. 185 of 2013, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC., on the file of the first respondent and the consequential proceedings in C.C.No.886 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sankarankovil, is quashed.

SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(CS-I) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To

1. The Judicial Magistrate , Sankarankovil.

2.-Do-thro'The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. 3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Karivalamvanthanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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

+1 cc to Mr. M.P.SENTHIL, ADVOCATE, SR NO.4987 PJL MAS/MR;20.02.2017:2P/6C Crl.O.P.(MD).No.901 of 2017 30.01.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/