Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/12399/2020disposed of

Harihara Siva Sankar v. The Inspector Of Police

2020-11-05Honourable Mrs Justice J. Nisha Banu2 pages

C rl.O.P.(MD)No.12399 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.11.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12399 of 2020 1.Harihara Siva Sankar 2.Manojkumar 3.Harihara Suthan@Ayyappan 4.Paranthaman 5.Mariappan ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 5 Vs.

1.State represented by The Inspector of Police Suthamalli Police Station Tirunelveli District (Crime No.93/2017) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Krishna Veni ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the entire records in relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.93 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned. For Petitioners :

Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik For R-1 :

Ms.S.E.Veronica Vincent, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 :

Mr.C.Navaneetha Krishnan

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to call for the entire records in relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.93 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent for the offence under Sections 147, 506(ii) and 363 of I.P.C and to quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

2.The second respondent / defacto complainant, as well as the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5 are present before this Court and they are identified by the respective learned counsel and both the parties have filed a joint compromise memo stating that the 6th accused namely Palaraman died in the last year and his death certificate was also enclosed in the typed set of papers and also stated that the matter in issue between themselves has been amicably resolved and the second respondent / defacto complainant is not willing to prosecute the complaint and therefore, the petitioners would pray for quashing the FIR in Crime No.93 of 2017 on the file of 1st respondent police.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

C rl.O.P.(MD)No.12399 of 2020 3.The compromise memo is filed before this Court and the parties along with their respective counsel are also personally present before this Court today (05.11.2020) and the defacto complainant has represented before this Court that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties. The learned Government Advocate who was present in the Court had also verified their identity and would state that she has no objection for the above compromise.

4.In the result, by recording the compromise, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.93 of 2017 on the file of 1st respondent police, is quashed. The joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) msa 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: Photocopy of the Joint Compromise memo dated 30.09.2020. To 1.The Inspector of Police Suthamalli Police Station Tirunelveli District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik,Advocate,in SR.No.21375. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12399 of 2020 05.11.2020 (NS)CO AP(07/01/2021) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2