Justin Prakash v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.7037 and 7038 of 2020
1. Justin Prakash,
2. Babu, : Petitioners Vs 1.State represented through The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul District.
Crime No. 458 of 2016
2. Arul Sivajothi, : Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in C.C.No.7 of 2019 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal and quash the same. 1/6
For Petitioners : M/s.T.A.Ebenezer, For R1 : Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R21 : Mr.V.Karuna
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.7 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 353 and 342 IPC, in Crime No.458 of 2016.
2.The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto complainant, who is a Post Man, asked for identity cards to deliver the passport of the first petitioner, the petitioners refused to show the proof, subsequently abused and attacked him. Hence the complaint. 3.The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
2/6
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.K.Kathirvel, SSI of Police, Kodaikanal 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.
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), 353 and 342 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 3/6
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 C.C.No.7 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, 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 C.C.No.7 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. 9.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 20.07.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order lr 4/6
To 1.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
5/6
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
lr 20.07.2022 6/6