Dhanaraj v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.07.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL.OP.(MD)No.9697 of 2017 Dhanaraj ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.

1.The State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Manachanallur Police Station Trichy District.

(Crime No.204/2017) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Punithavalli ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying this Court to call for the records relating to the impugned charge-sheet in C.C.No.76 of 2017, on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : M/s.K.Sivabalan For Respondent-1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan Govt. Advocate(Crl.Side) For Respondent-2 : Mr.A.Saran

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge-sheet in C.C.No.76 of 2017, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy.

2.Heard the submissions of Mr.K.Sivabalan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.K.Anbarasan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)appearing for the first respondent/State and Mr.A.Saran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court including the joint compromise memo filed by both the parties.

3.Based on the complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant, a case was registered against the Petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.76 of 2017. The charge-sheet was filed and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.76 of 2017,before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy. After the registration of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

criminal case, the parties have entered into a compromise and the compromise memo, dated 21.07.2017 is also produced before this Court today. The second respondent/de-facto complainant had no objection to quash the charge-sheet in C.C.No.76 of 2017, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy.

4.The parties appear before this Court today and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed the joint compromise memo on their free will and volition. The identity of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced before this Court by the parties concerned. The identity of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)through the respondent/Police.

5.Having regard to the terms of joint compromise memo, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending. Hence, in the circumstances stated above, this Court is inclined to quash the C.C.No.76 of 2017, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy, based on the joint compromise memo filed by both parties before this Court. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the C.C.No.76 of 2017, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy is quashed. The Joint compromise memo, dated 21.07.2017 shall form part and parcel of this order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Encl.: Xerox copy of Compromise Memo To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy.

2. The Inspector of Police, Manachanallur Police Station Trichy District.

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

+ 1 CC TO Mr.K.SIVABALAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 68121 VSN TE/KK/SAR-II : 03/08/2017 : 2P/5C ORDER MADE IN CRL.OP.(MD)No.9697 of 2017 26.07.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/