Madras High Court
Haji Mohamed vs The Inspector Of Police on 3 August, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13971 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P (MD) No.13971 of 2022
1. Haji Mohamed
2. Mohamed Rishvan
3. Nashrudeen @ Nasurudeen
4. Abbas @ Abbas Manthiri
5. Riyash Mohamed
... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
Mimisal Police Station,
Pudukkottai District
(Crime No. 11 of 2018).
2. Navash Khan @ Nawaskhan
... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.11 of 2019, on the file of the first
respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.M. Suresh
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13971 of 2022
For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James (R1)
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Mr.K.Sivakarthi (R2)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.11 of 2019, on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/defacto
complainant was abused and assaulted by the accused persons with knife on
10.02.2019, at about 09.30PM. Hence, the 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13971 of 2022
Mr.V.Thirumal, Head Constable of Police, Mimisal Taluk Police Station 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.
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 to power to quash the complaint for the offence under
Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC.
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.11 of 2019 pending before the first respondent
police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13971 of 2022
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a
sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.11 of 2019 on the file of the first
respondent police, is quashed insofar as the petitioners alone and the terms
of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
03.08.2022
Internet:Yes./No
Index:Yes/no
PNM
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Mimisal Police Station,
Pudukkottai District
(Crime No. 11 of 2018).
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13971 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.13971 of 2022
03.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
