Anand v. The Inspector Of Police

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10782 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.06.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM CRL.O.P (MD) No.10782 of 2022

1. Anand,

2. Prabhu,

3. Venkatramani, : Petitioners Vs

1. State Rep by The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Trichy City, Crime No.12/2022.

2. Ramesh, : Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.12/2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police city crime branch trichy city and quash the same.

For Petitioners : M/s.Sathya Chidambaram S, For R1 : Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.S.Ramakrishnan

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.12/2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch Trichy City 2.The case of the prosecution is that due to money dispute, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners and for the same, FIR has been registered in Crime No.12 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 417, 420 and 506(i) IPC. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10782 of 2022 they were identified by Mr.R.Aynian, Special Sub Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Trichy City as well as by the learned Counsels appearing on both the sides. 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 417, 420 and 506(i) IPC. 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 No.12 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 No.12 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-) // True Copy // /07/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Encl.: xerox copy of Joint Compromise memo.

lr To

1. The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Trichy City, 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.

ORDER IN CRL.O.P (MD) No.10782 of 2022 24.06.2022 KMV(CO) TR(06.07.2022) 2P 3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2