Ganesh Pandian v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.12.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR 1.Ganesh Pandian 2.Jeganathan 3.Indhirani 4.Gowthaman ... Petitioners/A1 to A4 Vs.

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Manapparai, Thiruchirapalli District.

(Crime No.12 of 2022) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Nithya ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.12 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Murugesan For R1 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.P.Rajendra Babu 1/5

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.12 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal. 2.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 against the petitioners and that FIR came to be registered in Crime No.12 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 376 r/w 511 and 506(1) IPC on the file of the first respondent Police.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that investigation is pending. 4.Admittedly, the first petitioner is the husband; the second petitioner is the father-in-law; the third petitioner is the mother-in-law; and the fourth petitioner is the brother-in-law of the second 2/5

respondent/de-facto complainant. The second respondent has represented that she is now residing with the first petitioner and that her in-laws are residing in a different house.

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 petitioners as well as the second respondent 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 petitioners 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. 3/5

8.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.12 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed.

13.12.2022 Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No sji To 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Manapparai, Thiruchirapalli District.

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

4/5

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

sji Order made in Dated: 13.12.2022 5/5