Uthayakumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.07.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM CRL.O.P (MD) No.11541 of 2022

1. Uthayakumar,

2. Sukumar,

3. Kirivasan @ Girivaasan, : Petitioners Vs

1. The Inspector of Police, Kattupudhur Police Station, Kattupudhur, Trichy District.

Crime No.125 of 2022.

2. Kirthika @ Kiruthika, : Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.125 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 1/5

For Petitioners : M/s.Vadivelan T, For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.K.Arunraj

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.125 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the on 26.05.2022, the petitioners went to the second respondent's house and quarrelled with her younger brother. The second respondent tried to rescue her brother, but the petitioners pulled her down and threatened with dire consequences. 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.

2/5

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.R.Thirugnanam, Gr-I of Police, Kattuputhur Police Station as well as by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 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 294(b) and 323 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. 3/5

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.125 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.125 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. 04.07.2022 Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no lr To

1. The Inspector of Police, Kattupudhur Police Station, Kattupudhur, Trichy District.

4/5

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

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

ORDER IN CRL.O.P (MD) No.11541 of 2022 04.07.2022 5/5