J. Ram Vignesh v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.07.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9731 of 2017 J.Ram Vignesh ... Petitioner/Sole Accused -Vs1. State through The Inspector of Police, Ramjee Nagar Police Station, Trichy District.

(Crime No.31 of 2017)

2. U.Nirmala Rani, W/o.Rajkumar, Advocate, State Member, All India Federation of Women Union, C-23, North East Extension, 3rd Cross, Thillai Nagar, Trichy - 620 018. ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.31 of 2017, dated 12.03.2017, on the file of the Ramjee Nagar Police Station, Trichy and to quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.L.Prabhu For R-1 :

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

For R-2 : Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition is filed for quashing the First Information Report in Crime No.31 of 2017, dated 12.03.2017, on the file of the Ramjee Nagar Police Station, Trichy.

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

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. On the basis of the complaint preferred by the second respondent, a case was registered against the petitioner/sole

accused by the first respondent in Crime No.31 of 2017, dated 12.03.2017, for the alleged offences under Sections 323 and 506(II) of I.P.C., r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, 2002.

4. After the complaint, it is stated that on the advise of the elders and well wishers, the parties, namely, the second respondent/defacto complainant and the petitioner have entered into a compromise. The second respondent agreed that she has no objection for quashing the First Information Report in Crime No.31 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police.

5. The parties appeared today before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that the Compromise Memo, dated 24.07.2017, signed by them was 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. In view of the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, this Court is of the view that no useful and fruitful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence, the Criminal Original petition is allowed and on the basis of the Compromise Memo signed by the parties, the First Information Report in Crime No.31 of 2017, dated 12.03.2017, on the file of the first respondent police is quashed in toto and the Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

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

1. The Inspector of Police, Ramjee Nagar Police Station, Trichy District.

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

+ 1 CC TO Mr.L.PRABHU, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 68097 PMU TE/SKN-RSK/SAR-III : 08/08/2017 : 2P/4C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9731 of 2017 27.07.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/