Albert v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:10.08.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM Albert ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police Kulasekaram Police Station Kaniyakumari District 2.Rajabai ....Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.400 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ranjithkumar For Respondents : Mr.Sakthi Kumar No.1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side) No.2 : Mr.K.Rajapandi 1/5

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in 400 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police 2.The case of the prosecution is that due to some property dispute, the petitioner threatened and harassed the mother to hand over the possession of the house and in the said occurrence, the petitioner herein had broken the grill gate of the said house and trespassed into it. Further he also threatened with dire consequences, hence the case came to be registered.

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 petitioner and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioner and the second 2/5

respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by the respondent police 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 between the mother and the son and now the parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offence under Sections 427,447,506(ii) of IPC. 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 3/5

the proceedings in Crime No. 400 of 2021 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.400 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police respondent police, is quashed insofar as the petitioner alone and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.

10.08.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav To

1. The Inspector of Police Kulasekaram Police Station Kaniyakumari District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

4/5

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

aav 10.08.2022 5/5