← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/14276/2024allowed

Muthukaruppan v. The Inspector Of Police

2025-01-30Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.01.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR 1.MuthuKaruppan 2.Chinnammal ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.

Crime No.332 of 2024 2.Maheshwaran ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.332 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police station and quash the same in respect of the petitioners.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Joseph Jerry For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate(Crl.Side) \ For R2 : Mr.T.Gopalakrishnan 1/6

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.332 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent Police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners' daughter and the second respondent are husband and wife. There was misunderstanding between them and thereby, the petitioners's daughter came to her parent's house. When the defacto complainant is taking attempt to take his wife to his home, he was assaulted by the pteitioners. Hence, the complaint.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police and on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.332 of 2024, dated 11.06.2024 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(2) of IPC against the petitioners.

2/6

4. The case is still under the investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

5. A Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 28.08.2024, has been filed before this Court, which has 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.Muthusamy, SSI of Police, Natham 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.

6. In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and now the parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(2) of IPC. 3/6

7. The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat) reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.

8. 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.332 of 2024, pending before the first respondent Police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.332 of 2024, on the file of the first respondent Police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo dated 28.08.2024, shall form part and parcel of this order. 30.01.2025 (1/2) NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Rmk 4/6

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

Rmk 30.01.2025 (1/2) 6/6