Kaveri v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 15830 of 2022 1.Kaveri 2.Aathiraja 3.Suresh @ Keeri Suresh 4.Ashok Kumar 5.Udhaykumar 6.Arivumani 7.Kaleeswaran 8.Manibharathi ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 to 3 & 5 to 9 Vs.
1.The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Jaihidhpuram Police Station, Madurai City.
(Crime No.595 of 2016) ... Respondent/Complainant 2.Maheswari ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant 3.Santhanpandi 4.Subramaniam ... Respondent/Victim 1/5
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in S.C.No.333 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai District, and quash the same as far as the petitioners are concerned. For Petitioners : Mr.R.L.Dhilipan Pandian For R1 : Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 to R4 : Mr.L.Siva
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the S.C.No.333 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai District. 2.The contention of the petitioner is that based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered First Information Report in Crime No.595 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 448, 294(b), 324, 307 & 506(2) IPC, against the petitioners.
2/5
3.The further contention of the petitioners is that they compromised the issue between them and the respondents 2 to 4 amicably. A joint memo of compromise was filed, which has been duly signed by the petitioners and the respondents 2 to 4 and also by their respective counsels. 4.The petitioners and the respondents 2 to 4 appeared along with their respective counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards before this Court. They were also identified by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and Mr.N.Periyadaikkan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaihidhpuram Police Station, Madurai City. Both the parties were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence the Compromise Memo is recorded.
5. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also in view of the joint compromise memo, dated 11.09.2022, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending. 3/5
6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the entire proceedings in S.C.No.333 of 2021, pending on the file of the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai District, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order.
12.09.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order dss Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To 1.The II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai District, 2.The Inspector of Police, Jaihidhpuram Police Station, Madurai City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
G.ILANGOVAN ,J., dss Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 15830 of 2022 12.09.2022 5/5