Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/9316/2017allowed

Murugan v. The Sub 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.9316 of 2017 1.Murugan, 2.Sathiyaraj, 3.Rajagopal, ... Petitioner / Accused 1 to 3 -Vs1. State rep. by, The Sub Inspector of Police, Kadalkudi Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

(In Crime No.34 of 2016) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. Mailsamy ... 2nd Respondent /Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.216 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent against the petitioners above name and quash the same as it has no prima facie case against the petitioners.

For Petitioners :

Mr.N.Ananthapadmanabhan For R-1 :

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

For R-2 :

Mr.R.Srinivasan ***

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.216 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent against the petitioners and to quash the same as there is no prima facie case against the petitioners.

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

3. On the basis of complaint lodged by the second respondent / defacto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.34 of 2016, under Sections 419, 465, 471, 420 r/w Section 120(b) IPC. Pursuant to the complaint, the parties appeared to have settled their https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

disputes amicably out of Court and they have also entered into a compromise in respect of the criminal case registered in Crime No.34 of 2016.

4. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, dated 17.07.2017, the parties admitted that the above petition shall be allowed and the criminal case in Crime No.34 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent can be quashed.

5.Today, the parties appeared before this Court and expressed that they have signed the Joint Compromise Memo signed on their own free 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.Considering the terms of Joint Compromise Memo, dated 17.07.2017, this Court is of the firm opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence, on the basis of the compromise memo signed by the parties, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First Information Report in Crime No.64 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent is quashed in toto and the Joint Compromise Memo, dated 17.07.2017, signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

7.Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Encl: Xerox copy of Joint Compromise Memo To The Sub Inspector of Police, Kalakudi Police Station, Thoothukudi District.(Cr. No.34/2016) +1 CC to M/s. N.ANANTHAPADMANABAN, Advocate, SR No. 67081. CMR PSM/SV/SAR2/28.07.2017/2P/3C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9316 of 2017 20.07.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/