P.Ramamoorthy v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.07.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

1. P.Ramamoorthy,

2. Vijyalakshmi,

3. Mariyammal, : Petitioners Vs

1. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Perunkudi Police Station, Madurai District.

Crime No.103/2019

2. Murugeswari, : Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to call for the entire records in relating to the FIR in Crime No.103 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s.Aravindraj R, For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/5

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in crime No.103 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent. 2.The case of the prosecution is that due to family dispute, the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant. 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.

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.Anumanthan, SSI of Police, Perungudi 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.

2/5

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), 323, 324, 506(ii) 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. 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.103 of 2019 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.103 of 2019 on the file of the first 3/5

respondent police, is quashed insofar as the petitioners alone and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. 08.07.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order lr 4/5

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

lr To 1.The Inspector of Police, Perunkudi Police Station, Madurai District.

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

08.07.2022 5/5