Pandi v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR 1.Pandi 2.S.Ponnusamy 3.P.Thangapandi 4.Thangaraj @ Thangadurai 5.Natarajan 6.Murugan 7.Balamurugan 8.A.Jeyakumar 9.G.Sundar @ Sunthar 10.Paldurai @ Pauldurai 11.Balu @ Paul Nadar 12.Siva 13.Balaganesh @ Balaganesan 14.Boomiyalantha Perumal 15.P.Netharson @ Natherson 16.R.Thangadurai 17.P.Manikandan 1/7
18.T.Sujey @ Sujay 19.Manikandan 20.P.Raja ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The State rep., by The Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
Crime No.333 of 2021 2.Duraisamy ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in CC.No.279 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District and quash the same in respect of the petitioners. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Kesavan For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R2 : Mr.G.Susikumar 2/7
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in CC.No.279 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District, and quash the same as illegal, improper and abuse of process of law.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent regarding the worship and doing poojas in their family temple called "Uthiramadasamy Kovil" at Koodankulam. In that regard, on 20.08.2021, quarrel was arisen between the petitioners and the second respondent and attacked each other. Both have complained to the first respondent. It is the case and case in counter.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent and F.I.R. registered in Crime No.333 of 2021, after investigation, final report filed, the same taken cognizance in in CC.No.279 of 2023 on the 3/7
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District, for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act against the petitioners.
4. The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves, for the reason, sudden wordy quarrel lead to exchange of blows, it was not a premeditated attack and both parties contributed to the happenings. Now, both realized their mistakes, reconciled and second respondent agreeing to withdraw the complaint, not willing to pursue the case.
5. A Joint Memo of Compromise filed before this Court signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and their respective counsels. The petitioners and the second respondent present before this Court, identified by Mr.C.Sreepaul, Head Constable, Koodankulam Police Station, as well as by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. This Court enquired both the parties, satisfied that the parties have come to an 4/7
amicable settlement between themselves on their own voluntarily without any compulsion.
6. In the instant case, where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has to power to quash the complaint for the offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
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 CC.No.279 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District, against the petitioners, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. 5/7
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedingsin CC.No.279 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District, is quashed as against the petitioners and the joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
NCC : Yes / No 23.01.2025 Index : Yes / No (1/2) Rmk To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Rmk Order made in Dated: 23.01.2025 (1/2) 7/7