Manojkumar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.09.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR 1.Manojkumar In FIR mentioned as Manoj 2.Suriyaprakash 3.Karuppiah In FIR mentioned as Karuppasamy 4.Karthickkumar In FIR mentioned as Karhti 5.Alagumalaikannan 6.Hariprasath 7.Nanthikrishnan In FIR mentioned as Nathiesh 8.Nantheeswar In FIR mentioned as Lenin ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.218 of 2023) 1/6

2.Murugan ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.218 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sundar For R1 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mrs.B.Muthumari

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 528 BNSS seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.218 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal against the petitioners. 2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous dispute, the accused persons abused the second respondent in filthy language and also attacked him and hence, the second respondent lodged a 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.218 of 2023 dated 20.06.2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 448, 427 and 506(2) IPC against nine persons including the petitioners. He would further submit that the ninth accused Samayakrishnan's name was deleted from FIR.

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 Mr.M.Muthupandi, Special Sub Inspector, Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station as well as by the learned counsels appearing for the 3/6

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 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 448, 427 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.218 of 2023 pending before the first respondent police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

4/6

9.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.218 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. 25.09.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gns To 1.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station, Madurai District.

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

5/6

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

gns 25.09.2024 6/6