Dharmendra Singh v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.03.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP CRL.O.P(MD)No.15537 of 2023 1.Dharmendra Singh 2.Ragul Yadav 3.Sube Singh 4.Dineshkumar

...Petitioners

vs 1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai District.

2.Anandha Babu

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned First Information Report in Cr.No.846 of 2023, dated 31.07.2023 on the file of the first Respondent and to quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Jeyakumar For R1 : Mr.M.Veeranthiran Government Advocate (crl.side) For R2 :Mr.A.Sheik Nasurdeen 1/5

O R D E R

The Criminal Original Petition had been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Cr.No.846 of 2023 pending on the file of the first Respondent. 2.Mr.S.Jeyakumar, learned Counsel [Enrl.No.4352/2022], who filed vakalat on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused, Mr.M.Veeranthiran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing on behalf of the first Respondent and Mr.A.Sheik Nasurdeen, learned Counsel (Enrl.No. 4129/2018], who filed vakalat on behalf of the second Respondent are present in Court.

3.The Petitioners herein are serving in the Central Government service. The second Respondent/de-facto Complainant, Anandha Babu, who was working as Manager in Q Best Recreation Club, Madurai, was attacked with liquor bottle by the Petitioners for the dispute with regard to service charge of Rs.60/-, which caused the de-facto Complainant lose consciousness. He was taken to hospital and treated as in-patient for seven 2/5

days. Therefore, the case was registered by the first Respondent Police under Sections 294(b), 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. 4.Pending investigation, the Accused and the de-facto Complainant had arrived at an amicable settlement, since the Accused are in the risk of losing their job. The Accused/Petitioners entered into a compromise with the de-facto Complainant. The Accused offered a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by the de-facto Complainant and the y have also handed over a demand draft drawn in favour of the de-facto Complainant for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the de-facto Complainant. A joint compromise memo had also been filed before this Court by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/de-facto Complainant.

5.The learned Government Advocate (crl.side), on instructions from the first Respondent, submitted that the compromise arrived at between the parties is bona fide.

6.In the light of the compromise arrived at between the 3/5

Petitioners/Accused and the second Respondent/de-facto Complainant, the joint compromise memo filed by the parties concerned is recorded. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR in Cr.No.846 of 2023 pending on the file of the first Respondent Police is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Internet :Yes/No 07.03.2024 Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No cmr To The Inspector of Police, Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai District.

4/5

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP , J.

cmr CRL.O.P(MD)No.15537 of 2023 07.03.2024 5/5