Hyther Ali v. The State Of Tamilnadu
Crl.O.P(MD)No.5953 of 2025 P.DHANABAL, J.
Today the matter has been listed under the caption for being mentioned.
2. Since the place of the Court was wrongly mentioned as 'Pudukkottai' instead of 'Pattukottai' in the order dated 01.04.2025, the said typographical error has to be corrected.
3. In view of the above, the Registry is directed to carryout necessary corrections and issue a fresh order copy. 22.04.2025 Mac Page No. 1 of 6
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL. O.P(MD) No.5953 of 2025 Hyther Ali ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Inspector of Police, Adhiramapattinam Police Station, Thanjavur District.
Crime No.348 of 2016 2.Bayas Ahamed ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.71 of 2019, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
For petitioner : Mr.R.Iyappan For R1 :Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Page No. 2 of 6
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.S.Mohan Kumar *****
O R D E R
This petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.71 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC, in Crime No.348 of 2016 and quash the same.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and defacto complainant are residing in same locality. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the police has registered FIR in Cr.No. 348 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsels on both sides represented that during pendency of the case in C.C.No.71 of 2019, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and to that effect, they have entered into a compromise and the same was filed before this Court.
Page No. 3 of 6
4. Today, the defacto-complainant and the accused are present and the Court enquired about the terms of compromise. The defactocomplainant represented that the defacto complainant and they entered into a compromise as the petitioner are friends and he has no objection in allowing this petition. A compromise memo, dated 28.03.2025 signed by the parties and their respective counsels, is also filed before this Court.
5. This Court has perused the terms of the compromise memo.
6. Considering the nature of the offences, the relationship between the parties and they have also entered into a compromise, it is appropriate to allow this petition.
7. Recording the said compromise memo, this petition is allowed and C.C.No.71 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, is quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 01.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd Page No. 4 of 6
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai.
2.Inspector of Police, Adhiramapattinam Police Station, Thanjavur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No. 5 of 6
P.DHANABAL,J apd Crl.OP(MD) No.5953 of 2025 01.04.2025 Page No. 6 of 6