Sathees @ Sathish v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
1. Sathees @ Sathish,
2. Veeraganesh,
3. Muthuraja,
4. Surya,
5. Suryaprakash,
6. Aasai @ Periyasamy @ Veerapandiyan,
7. Gangadharan,
8. Chandru, : Petitioners Vs
1. The state represented by The Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station, Sivagangai District.
Crime No. 101 of 2022.
... 1st Respondent / Complainant
2. Sethupathiraja, ... 2nd Respondents / Defacto complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime.No. 101 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : M/s. Paul Murugesh.S., For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.Jameel Arasu
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime.No. 101 of 2022, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, on the file of the first respondent police.
1/3
2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. They also attacked the defacto complainant. Hence the complaint.
3.The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 4.A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.J.Santhana Raj, SSI of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station, Sivagangai District. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. 5.In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and the parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has to power to quash the complaint for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
6.The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Panjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) reported in (2017)9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration. 7.In the light of the guidelines issued in the above said Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings in Crime No101 of 2022 pending before the first respondent police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No101 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed insofar as the petitioners alone and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) // True Copy // /06/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Encl.: xerox copy of Joint Compromise memo.
2/3
lr To 1.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station, Sivagangai District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
13.06.2022 (2/3) sg(CO) TR(27.06.2022) 3P C 3/3