← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/3504/2016partly allowed

N.Valangairaja v. The Sub-Inspector Of Police

2016-04-25Honourable Mr Justice P. N. Prakash3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.04.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3504 of 2016 1.N.Valangairaja (rep.by his natural guardian mother Selvarani) 2.K.Katturaja 3.R.Satheesh @ Satheesh Prabu (rep.by his natural guardian father Ramaraj) 4.S.Kannan @ Kannan Kumar ... Petitioners / Accused 1 to 4 vs.

1.The State rep.by The Sub-Inspector of Police Aayakudi Police Station Dindigul District (Crime No.50 of 2016) ... 1st Respondent/ Complainant 2.R.Ranjith ... 2nd Respondent / De facto Complainant PRAYER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No.50 of 2016, on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Aayakudi Police Station, Dindigul and quash all further proceedings as against these petitioners.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Nagenthran For Respondents : Mrs.S.Prabha, G.A.(Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.V.B.Sundareshwaran for R2

O R D E R

The petitioners have filed this criminal original petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.50 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent in their respect.

2. On 26.02.2016, this Court has passed the following order: "This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered in Cr.No.50 of 2016 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Aayakudi Police Station, Dindigul District and quash all further proceedings as against these petitioners.

2. It is seen that on 08.02.2016, at about 07.30 p.m, the defacto complainant and his friend one Ayyappan went to the place of the petitioners to enquire about the threat made by the petitioners in the morning at about 08.30 a.m. At that time, these petitioners exhorted the said Ayyappan to sever his friendship with muslim students. The petitioners, the defacto complainant and his friend Ayyappan are studying in Higher Secondary School. In this regard, there was an altercation between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and these petitioners abused them in filthy language. Subsequently, they attacked him with wooden logs and threatened him of dire consequences. The defacto complainant sustained injury on his leg and was admitted in the Government Hospital. The first respondent went to the Government Hospital and obtained a statement from the defacto complainant and registered a case against these petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 294 (b), 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C in Cr.No.50 of 2016.

3. Now, it appears that the parties have amicably settled their issues. When this matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners / accused and the de facto complainant / 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 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent Police.

4. The counsel appearing for the petitioners / accused filed this quash petition along with a Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 24.02.2016, duly stating that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the de facto complainant / second respondent has agreed for quashing of the above case pending in Cr.No.50 of 2016 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Aayakudi Police Station , Dindigul District.

5. It is seen that the accused are youngsters aged around 19 years. This Court finds that if the accused are let off just like that, the propensity in them to commit serious offences will increase, as they will be emboldened to take up crime as career. Therefore, this Court directs the petitioners to report before the Trustee, Gandhi Ashram Tiruchengode on 02.04.2016 and take part in the activities of Ashram till 20.04.2016. After receipt of the report from the Trustee of the Gandhi Ashram, Tiruchengode, further orders will be passed by this Court in this petition.

Call on 25.04.2016."

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the first petitioner / first accused, by name, N.Valangairaja and the third petitioner / third accused, by name, R.Satheesh @ Satheesh Prabu are present and they submitted that they reported before the Trustee, Gandhi Ashram, Tiruchengode from 02.04.2016 till 20.04.2016 as per the directions issued by this Court and learnt several things.

4. It appears that the second petitioner / second accused, by name, K.Katturaja and the fourth petitioner / fourth accused, by name, S.Kannan @ Kannan Kumar did not comply with the Orders passed by this Court.

5. Under such circumstances, the proceedings in Crime No.50 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent, are quashed in respect of the first petitioner / first accused, by name, N.Valangairaja and the third petitioner / third accused, by name, R.Satheesh @ Satheesh Prabu alone. As regards the second petitioner / second accused, by name, K.Katturaja and the fourth petitioner / fourth accused, by name, S.Kannan @ Kannan Kumar are concerned, since they did not comply with the Orders passed by this Court, the investigation in Crime No.50 of 2016 shall proceed as against them.

6. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is partly allowed to the extent as stated above on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The joint compromise memo, dated 22.02.2016, shall form part of this Order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

krk To 1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Aayakudi Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

RG.JGB-SS/ 09/05/2016 3P.3C Encl:copy of Joint compromise memo Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3504 of 2016 25.04.2016 (1/2)