Shanmugasundaram v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.11.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

1. Shanmugasundaram

2. Muthu Udaiyar

3. Muthu @ Muthuselvan

4. Lakshmanan

5. Udaiyar

6. Senthurpandi

7. Perumal

8. Pitchandi ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

2. Sankaran Reddiyar ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the the case in Crime No.99 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same against the petitioners.

1/6

For Petitioners : M/s.T.A.Ebenezer For R-1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. side) For R-2 : Mr.V.Karuna

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.99 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent Police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to Cooperative Election dispute, the accused persons unlawfully assembled and trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attempted to attack him and damaged the household articles to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence this present case.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second 2/6

respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police and on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.99 of 2019, dated 02.04.2019 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 109, 452, 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3 Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, against the petitioners.

4. The case is still under the investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

5. A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court, which has 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.P.Muthukrishnan, SSI. 230, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District, 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. 3/6

6. In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and now the parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 109, 452, 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3 Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992.

7. The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat) reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.

8. 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.99 of 2019, pending before the first respondent Police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.99 of 2019 on the file of the 4/6

first respondent Police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo, shall form part and parcel of this order. 22.11.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No jbr To 1.The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

jbr 22.11.2024 6/6