Antony v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.08.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM CRL.O.P (MD) No.15436 of 2022

1. Antony,

2. Perkmansh,

3. Primon,

4. Subash @ Iruthaya Subash,

5. Uma,

6. Jeorge,

7. Santha Kurus,

8. Jesu Kitheri, : Petitioners Vs

1. The Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District (Crime No. 49 of 2021).

2. Santhiyagu,

3. Ranjitha, : Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records of the impugned Charge Sheet in C.C.No. 71 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli and quash the same.

1/6

For Petitioners : Mr.Angusamy.V, For R1 : Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 and R3 : Mr.A.Balaji

O R D E R

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Charge Sheet in C.C.No. 71 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli , for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 294(b) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No.49 of 2021.

2.The case of the prosecution is that while taking water in the panchayat water tap, the petitioners quarrelled with the private respondents and also caused simple injuries to the defacto complainants. Hence the complaint.

3.The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided 2/6

to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

4. A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.J.Gnanaraj, Gr-I Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli 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 147, 323 and 294(b) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

6. The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 3/6

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 C.C.No. 71 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli, 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. 71 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. 26.08.2022 Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no lr 4/6

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

lr ORDER IN CRL.O.P (MD) No.15436 of 2022 26.08.2022 6/6