Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/9221/2017allowed

V. Satheesh Kumar v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-07-21Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.07.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL.O.P.(MD)No.9221 of 2017 V.Satheeskumar ...Petitioner/Sole Accused -Vs1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Staion, Samayanallur, Madurai.

Crime No.65 of 2015 ... 1st Respondetn/Complainant 2.M.Dhanalaxmi ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the charge sheet in S.C.No.41 of 2016 on the file of the learned Session Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram Madurai, and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.A.Abdul Muthalif For 1st Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the charge sheet in S.C.No.41 of 2016 on the file of the learned Session Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram Madurai, and quash the same.

2. Heard Mr.M.A.Abdul Muthalif, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the first respondent.

3. On the complaint made by the second respondent as against the petitioner, a criminal case was registered in Crime No.65 of 2015, for the offences under Section 354(A) of IPC., read with Section 8 of POCSO Act, and after filing charge sheet, the case was taken on file as S.C.No.41 of 2016, on the file of the learned Session Judge Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of POSCO Act.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, both the petitioner/sole accused as well as the second respondent 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 Additional Public Prosecutor through the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

respondent police and they categorically made a statement that the dispute between them have been settled amicably. They also filed a memo of compromise duly signed by both parties and counter signed by their respective Counsel.

5. In view of the statements 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 the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.41 of 2016, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of POSCO Act, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai, is quashed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Session Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Staion, Samayanallur, Madurai.

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

+1cc to Mr.M.A.Abdul Muthalif Advocate in SR. No.67038 DAS/PJL JS/SKN.RSK/SAR.1/1.08.2017/2P-5C CRL.O.P.(MD)No.9221 of 2017 21.07.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/