G.Ravi v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.08.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM CRL.O.P (MD) No.15482 of 2022

1. G.Ravi

2. G.Kannan

3. S.Motheeswaran

4. S.Saravanan

5. G.Thamilarasan

6. M.Manojkumar ... Petitioners 1 to 6/ Accused No. 1 to 6 Vs

1. The State Represented by The Sub- Inspector of Police, Thottiyam Police Station, Trichirappalli District.

(Crime No.79 of 2022) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. M.Saravanan ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records relating to the F.I.R in Crime No.79 of 2022 as against the petitioners 1 to 6 herein and quash the same. 1/6

For Petitioners : Mr.A.George Stephenkanikkairaj For R1 : Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Crl Side) For R2 : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.79 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent. 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.79 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., against the petitioners.

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 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 the learned Government Advocate and Mr.R.Mohan, Gr-I-479, Thottiyam Police Station, Tiruchirappalli 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 complaint for the offence under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.

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 3/6

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.79 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.79 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. 29.08.2022 Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no ebsi 4/6

To

1. The Sub- Inspector of Police, Thottiyam Police Station, Trichirappalli 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.15482 of 2022 29.08.2022 6/6