Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/15750/2024allowed

Karuppusamy @ Karuppasamy v. The State Of Tamilnadu

2024-10-18Honourable Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.10.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15750 of 2024 1.Karuppusamy @ Karuppasamy 2.Ramu 3.Chellamuthu 4.Kumar ... Petitioners/A1 to A4 vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Crime No.89 of 2017 ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Gurunathan ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant 3.Veerapathiran 4.Tamilselvan 5.Kajendran 6.Pushpam 7.Amchalekha 8.Lakshmi 9.Rajeshwari 10.Kalaiselvi 11.Divya ... Respondents 3 to 11/Proposed Respondents 3-11 [R3 to R11 are impleaded vide order dated 18.10.2024 in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.11049 of 2024] 1/6

Prayer:- Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in C.C.No.435 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam and quash the same against the petitioners.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Suresh For R1 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate (Crl. side) For R2 to R11 : Mr.R.Ponkarthikeyan Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15751 of 2024 1.Gurunathan 2.Rajendraprasath 3.Sasikumar 4.Veerapathiran @ Veerapatthiran ... Petitioners/A1, A4, A7 and A9 vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Crime No.90 of 2017 ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Karuppusamy ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant 3.Chellamuth 4.Suresh 5.Mathakumar ...Respondents 3 to 5/Proposed Respondents 3 to 5 [R3 to R5 are impleaded vide order dated 18.10.2024 in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.11050 of 2024] Prayer:- Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in Crime No.90 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same against the petitioners. 2/6

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Ponkarthikeyan For R1 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate (Crl. side) For R2 to R5 : Mr.P.Suresh COMMON ORDER Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15750 of 2024 is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.435 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam, against the petitioners. 2.Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15751 of 2024 is filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.90 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police against the petitioners.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks quashment of the case on compromise. The joint compromise memo is also filed. The occurrence is the case and counter and both sides are said to have attacked each other on account of a family dispute. Now, all the members of the family are submitting that they have settled the issue among themselves and the issue is amicably settled between them. 3/6

4.Considering the nature of the offences that it is under Section 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 336 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002, and it is a case and counter of allegations of family members attacking each other, I am of the view that this is a fit case as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, to exercise the power under 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash the same. 5.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. The case in C.C.No.435 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam, stands quashed and the FIR in Crime No.90 of 2017 shall stand quashed. The Memorandum of Compromise shall form part of the order.

18.10.2024 NCC : Yes / No sji To 4/6

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam. 2.The Inspector of Police, 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

sji 18.10.2024 6/6