Ragul @ Muniyaraj v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.11.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR 1.Ragul @ Muniyaraj 2.Gopi @ Gopinath 3.Nallumathavan @ Nallu Madhavan ... Petitioners Vs.

1.State rep., by its The Inspector of Police, Mallanginar Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

Crime No.46 of 2024 2.Ganesan ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in Crime No.46 of 2024 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the same as against the petitioners herein.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Suresh For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate(Crl.Side) \ For R2 : Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja 1/6

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.46 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent Police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto complainant participated in the temple procession, the petitioners and few others entered into wordy quarrel with the defacto complainant, that leads to a small hand clash, thereby, the defacto complainant sustained simple injury. Hence this present case.

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 Police and on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.46 of 2024, dated 27.03.2024 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC against the petitioners.

2/6

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, dated 22.11.2024, has been filed before this Court, which has 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.P.Periasamy, SSI of Police, Mallanginar Police Station, Virudhunagar District, as well as by the learned counsels appearing for the 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, where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC. 3/6

7. The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat) 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.46 of 2024, pending before the first respondent Police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.46 of 2024, on the file of the first respondent Police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo dated 22.11.2024, shall form part and parcel of this order. 27.11.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Rmk 4/6

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Mallanginar Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

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

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

Rmk 27.11.2024 6/6