Mutharasu v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.09.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR 1.Mutharasu 2.Vijayaragavan 3.Vicky @ Vigneshkumar 4.Saravanan @ Saravanakumar 5.Marishwaran 6.Rajamohan 7.Mani @ Manikandan : Petitioners/A1 to A7 Vs.

1.State rep by The Inspector of Police, Kallikudi Police Station, Madurai District.

Crime No.390 of 2020.

2.Sangilimurugan 3.Pandiyaraj ... Respondents (R3 impleaded vide order, dated 12.09.2024 in Crl.MP(MD)NO.9722 of 2024 in Crl.OP(MD)No.13598 of 2024) 1/6

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No.390 of 2020, dated 07.05.2020 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioners.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Arokiya Selvaramesh, For R1 : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.T.Jeyapal

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 528 B.N.S.S., seeking orders, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No.390 of 2020, dated 07.05.2020 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioners.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, attacked him with wooden log and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

2/6

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 and on that basis, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.390 of 2020, dated 07.05.2020 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) IPC against the petitioners.

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 has been filed 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 Ms.K.Valarmathi, WSSI, Kallikudi Police Station, Madurai District 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. 3/6

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 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) IPC.

7. 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.

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.390 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.390 of 2024 on the file of the 4/6

first respondent police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

12.09.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No das To 1.The Inspector of Police, Kallikudi Police Station, Madurai District.

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

5/6

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

das Order made in Dated: 12.09.2024 6/6