M.Parthasarathi v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.09.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.6086 of 2021 1.M.Parthasarathi 2.M.Mahendran ... petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 vs.

1.The State of Tamolnadu rep by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Vadipatti, Madurai District.

(Crime NO.140 of 2013) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.S.Chelliah Yogeeswaran ... 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 the First Information Report in Crime No.140 of 2013, dated 12.04.2013, on the file of the first respondent for offences under Sections 120, 34, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner. For petitioners : Mr.R.Karuppiah For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate(Criminal Side) For R2 : Mr.J.Pitchandi

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the Crime No.140 of 2013, on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station,Vadipatti, Madurai District, dated 12.04.2013. 2.It is a dispute between the father-in-law and son-in-law and the matter is compromised between the parties. At the time of appearance, the defacto complainant would submit that the first accused created a forged patta in his name.

3.The contention of the petitioners and the second respondent is that based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered First Information Report in Crime No.140 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 120, 34, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the petitioners.

4.The further contention of the petitioners is that they compromised the issue with the second respondent amicably. A joint 1/3

memo of compromise was filed, which has been duly signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsels.

5.The petitioners and the second respondent appeared through video conference from the office of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) before this Court along with their counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards. They were also identified by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and Mr.D.Balasubramani, Sub-Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Vadipatti, Madurai District. Both the parties were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence, the Compromise Memo is recorded.

6.Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners and also in view of the joint compromise memo, dated 22.04.2021, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending. Hence, all further proceedings in Crime No.140 of 2013, pending on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Vadipatti, Madurai District, is quashed and the compromise memo is recorded.

7.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.140 of 2013, pending on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Vadipatti, Madurai District, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD-II) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To 1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Vadipatti, Madurai District.

2/3

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.6086 of 2021 20.09.2021 NSN(CO) KB(30.09.2021) 3P 3C 3/3