Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/9212/2020allowed

Kanagasigamani @ Kanagu v. The Inspector Of Police

2020-09-02Honourable Mr Justice R. Pongiappan2 pages

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9212 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.09.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9212 of 2020 Kanagasigamani @ Kanagu .. Petitioner / Sole Accused Vs.

1. State represented through the Inspector of Police, T.Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.138 of 2015) ... Respondent No.1 / Complainant

2. John Murugan

...Respondent No.2/ De facto Complainant

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the entire records connected to the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.138 of 2015, pending on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi For R-1 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohn Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Criminal side) For R-2 : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the case registered in crime No.138 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC.

2. 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.

3. A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court, which has been signed by the petitioner, second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioner and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court through video conferencing and they were identified by Ms.Silviya Jasmine, Inspector of Police, T.Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9212 of 2020

4. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.138 of 2015 pending on the file of the first respondent Police.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, FIR in crime No.138 of 2015, on the file of the first respondent Police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS I) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) tsg 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 Inspector of Police, T.Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9212 of 2020 02.09.2020 KK(10.09.2020) 2P 3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2