Madras High Court
Subramanian vs The Inspector Of Police on 2 August, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13887 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13887 of 2022
Subramanian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
Thottiyam Police Station
Trichy District
2.Pushpanathan ....Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records in Crime No.156 of 2022 on the file of the
first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Joel Paul Antony
For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James
No.1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
No.2 : Mr.S.Shanmugam
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13887 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.156 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police
2.The case of the prosecution is that there is a money dispute
between the petitioner and the second respondent and when the same was
questioned, the petitioner herein threatened with dire consequences,
hence the second respondent has preferred a complaint.
3.The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time,
the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute
amicably among themselves.
4.A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court
which have been signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and
also by their respective counsel. The petitioner and the second
respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were
identified by Mr.G.Jeyamurugan, Gr.I-228, Thottiyam Police Station as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13887 of 2022
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.
5.In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and the
parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the
matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offence
under Sections 294(b),506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act.
6.The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Gian Singh vs. State of Panjab and another reported in
(2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of
Gujrath) reported in (2017)9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.
7.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. 156 of 2022 pending before the first
respondent police, even though, the offences involved are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13887 of 2022
compoundable in nature.
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No. 156 of 2022 on the file of the
first respondent police respondent police, is quashed insofar as the
petitioner and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and
parcel of this order.
02.08.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
aav
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Thottiyam Police Station
Trichy District
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13887 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13887 of 2022
02.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
