S.Saravanan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9955 of 2023 S.Saravanan ... petitioner / Accused No.6 Vs.
1. State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Orthanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District.
...1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Vembarasi ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in FIR in Crime No.1900 of 2020 dated 14.11.2020 pending investigation on the file of the 1st respondent Police/complainant and quash the same against the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.Raja S For R1 : Mr.R.Sureshkumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.V.Balasubramaniyan O RDER This petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.1900 of 2020 on the file of the 1st respondent police. 1/4
2.The contention of the petitioner is that based on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No.1900 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 427, 506(ii) of IPC against the petitioner.
3.The further contention of the petitioner is that they compromised the issue with the 2nd respondent amicably. A joint memo of compromise was filed, which has been duly signed by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and also by their respective counsels.
4. The defacto complainant is present before this Court and stated that by mis-identification, the above said petitioner is arrayed as accused and he is not present in the place of occurrence.
5. Perusal of the CD file shows that the proper identification of the accused has not been made by the first respondent Police.
6. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court along with their counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards. They were also identified by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the 2/4
Investigation Officer. Both the parties were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence, the Compromise Memo is recorded.
7. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also in view of the joint compromise memo, dated 08.06.2023, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending. Hence, all further proceedings in Crime No.1900 of 2020 pending on the file of the 1st respondent police is quashed and the compromise memo is recorded.
8. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.1900 of 2020, pending on the file of the 1st respondent police is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order. 14.06.2023 NCC:Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Indu 3/4
G.ILANGOVAN. J.
Indu To 1.The Inspector of Police, Orthanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9955 of 2023 14.06.2023 4/4