Muthu Murugan, v. The Inspector Of Police

Crl.OP(MD)No.6658 of 2019 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.6658 of 2019 Muthu Murugan ... Petitioner/1st Accused vs.

1.The State Represented by its, The Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.303 of 2017) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Konnamuthu ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in relating to the impugned proceedings of the charge sheet in C.C.No.265 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram, and to quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Karthik For R1 : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy, Government Advocate(Criminal Side) For R2 : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.265 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram.

2.It is a case and case in counter. The contention of the petitioner is that based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.303 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner. 3.The further contention of the petitioner is that he wants to compromise the issue with the second respondent amicably. A joint memo of compromise is filed, which has been duly signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and also by their respective counsels.

4.The petitioner and the second respondent appeared in person along with their respective counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards before this Court. They were also identified by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and Mr.R.Sivakumar, Head Constable, B1 Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.OP(MD)No.6658 of 2019 District. Both the parties were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence the Compromise Memo is recorded.

5. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also in view of the joint compromise memo, dated 17.12.2021, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending.

6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.265 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) dssebsi Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

ENCL:Xerox Copy of Joint Compromise Memo To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.6658 of 2019 07.03.2022 IMS(CO) GC(21.03.2022) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2