Jeevanantham v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.08.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM CRL.O.P (MD) No.14342 of 2022

1. Jeevananatham

2. Ayyappan

3. Pandiyan

4. Sakthivel

5. Minor Vishal S/o.Thamilselvan, Represented by his mother Anitha ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 Vs

1. The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatty Police Station, Trichy District.

(in Crime No.91 of 2022) ... 1st Respondent/ Complainant

2. Palanivel ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in connection with Crime No.91 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same in so far as these petitioners are concerned.

1/6

For Petitioners : M/s.A.Banumathy For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : M/s.N.Gayathri

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.91 of 2022, dated 11.03.2022, on the file of the first respondent police.

2.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.91 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. 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.

2/6

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant and the accused persons settled the matter out of the Court and they have filed a Joint Memo of Compromise before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners 1 to 4 and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. Since the 5th petitioner is a minor, his mother signed in the memo on behalf of her son. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by the learned Government Advocate and Mrs.M.Ramathilagam, WPC-1968, Vaiyampatti Police Station, Trichy District. 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 FIR in Crime No.91 of 2022, for the offence under Sections 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. 3/6

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.91 of 2022 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.91 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed insofar as the petitioners alone and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. Internet:Yes./No 10.08.2022 Index:Yes/no ebsi 4/6

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatty Police Station, Trichy District.

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

5/6

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

ebsi ORDER IN CRL.O.P (MD) No.14342 of 2022 10.08.2022 6/6