Arunachalam v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.02.2022 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.9871 & 9872 of 2019
1. Arunachalam Pillai
2. Illangovan
3. Subramani
4. Kathiravan ... Petitioners/ Accused Nos.A1 to A4 Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
Crime No. 27 of 2017 ... 1st Respondent/ Complainant
2. S.K.S.Kulanthaivel ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the complaint in C.C.No.169 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.T.Vadivelan For R1 : Mr.Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : M/s. N.Tamilmani
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the CC.No.169 of 2018 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul on the basis of a joint compromise memo filed by the petitioners and the second respondent.
2. The first petitioner was reported dead and the death certificate has also been produced before this Court. 3.The contention of the petitioners is that based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered First Information Report in Crime No.27 of 2017 for the 1/3
offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 294(b) and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code.
4.The further contention of the petitioners is that they want to compromise the issue between them and the second respondent amicably. A joint memo of compromise was filed, which has been duly signed by the petitioners 2 to 4 and the second respondent and also by their respective counsels.
5.The petitioners 2 to 4 and the second respondent appeared in person along with their respective counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards before this Court. They were also identified by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr.S.Josephsayaridoss, Special Sub-Inspector of Police (SSI), District Crime Branch, Dindigul District. Both the parties to compromise were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence the Compromise Memo is recorded.
6. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners and also in view of the joint compromise memo, dated 10.02.2022, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending.
7.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the entire proceedings in CC.No.169 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners 2 to 4/accused No.A2 to A4 and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order. Consequently the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CRL) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ebsi 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.N.TAMILMANI, Advocate ( SR-6132[F] dated 15/02/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.T.VADIVELAN, Advocate ( SR-6243[F] dated 15/02/2022 ) and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.9871 & 9872 of 2019 14.02.2022 MGJ(25.02.2022) 3P 6C 3/3