Aravinthkumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.12.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR Aravinthkumar : Petitioner Vs.

1.State rep.through The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District.

Crime No.330 of 2022.

2.Raja : Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to FIR in Crime No.330 of 2022, dated 17.08.2022 on the file of the second respondent Police and quash the same as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Prabha, for Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar, For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthu Manikkam, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), for R1.

: Mr.S.Balasubramanian, for R2.

1/4

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders, to call for the records relating to FIR in Crime No.330 of 2022, dated 17.08.2022 on the file of the second respondent Police and quash the same as against the petitioner.

2. The second respondent has lodged a complaint and on that basis, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.330 of 2022, for the offence under Sections 294(b), 448, 427, 323 and 506(ii) IPC, on the file of the first respondent Police and that the investigation is pending. 3.When the matter was taken up earlier, the Manager of the Toll / defacto complainant was present. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the defacto complainant's father had expired yesterday, Mr.M.Madhu, Project Manager is present today.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that the accused had caused damages to the Toll Gate including the computer to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and they have rectified and they had settled the matter amicably. 2/4

5. Meanwhile, the parties have decided to burry the hatchet and compromised their dispute among themselves amicably. In pursuance of the said compromise, they have filed a joint compromise memo.

6. The petitioner as well as the second respondent/defacto complainant are present before this Court and they are identified by their counsel as well as by the first respondent Police. On enquiry, before this Court both parties have accepted the compromise between them and filing of joint compromise memo. Hence, the compromise memo is recorded.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and filed joint compromise memo and recording of the same, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the case pending. Consequently, the FIR in Crime No.330 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent Police, stands quashed.

8 . In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. 16.12.2022 das 3/4

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

das To

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

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

16.12.2022 4/4