Ramar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.11.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.11127 & 11693 of 2020 1.Ramar 2.Muthukumar @ Muthukumaran ..Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 Vs 1.The State through Inspector of Police, B2, Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

Crime No.21/2016.

..Respondent No.1/Complainant 2.Ayyankalai ..Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant Crl.O.P(MD)No.11693 of 2020:

1.Ayyankalai 2.Sundari 3.Sulokshana ..Petitioners/Accused Nos.1,3 &4 Vs 1.The State through, B2, Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, Cr.No.20/2016.

..Respondent No.1/Complainant 2.Ramar ..Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant PRAYER in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11127 of 2020: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records relating to the F.I.R. in Crime No. 21 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police dated 13.01.2016 and quash the same. PRAYER in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11693 of 2020: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records relating to the F.I.R. in Crime No. 20 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent police dated 13.01.2016 and quash the same. For Petitioners (in Crl.O.P(MD)No.

11127 of 2020 and for R2 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11693/2020) : Mr.S.J.Chakkaravarthy For Petitioners (in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11693 of 2020 & for R2 in Crl OP(MD)No.11127/2020):Mr.N.Saravanan 1/3

For R1 : Ms.S.E.Veronica Vincent (in both WPs) Government Advocate

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2.These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime Nos. 20 & 21 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police.

3.The second respondent / defacto complainant as well as the petitioners/accused in both Criminal Original Petitions are present before this Court and they are identified by the respective learned counsel and both the parties have filed joint compromise memos stating that the matters in issue between them has been amicably resolved and therefore, the second respondent / defacto complainant is not willing to prosecute the case and therefore would pray for quashing the FIRs.

4. The compromise memos are filed before this Court and the parties are also present personally along with their respective counsels and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would state that he has verified their identity.

5. In the result, by recording the compromise, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the proceedings in Crime Nos. 20 & 21 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police are quashed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) vrn 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.

2/3

To:- 1.The Inspector of Police, B2, Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

Crime Nos.20 & 21 of 2016.

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

+1 CC to Mr.S.J. CHAKKKARAVARTHY, Advocate ( SR-21029[F] dated 04/11/2020 ) +1 cc to Mr.N.Saravanan , Advocate SR.No.21028 Common order made in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.11127 & 11693 of 2020 02.11.2020 VR(CO) KM (18.11.2020) 3P 5C 3/3