Madras High Court
Subash vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14173of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14173 of 2022
Subash ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
Souththamaraikulam Police Station
Kanyakumari District
2.Vasudevan ....Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No. 73 of
2022 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same in
respect of the petitioner alone.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Malaiyendran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James
No.1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
No.2 : Mr.A.Palkani
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14173of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.73 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 07.02.2022 at about 9.50
am., the defacto complainant went to the college in front of the parking
area, the accused persons attacked the defacto complainant , abused him
in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14173of 2022
identified by Mr.Jeyachandran,HC 1952 Soththamaraikulam 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
counter case has also been registered 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),
323,506(i) of 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14173of 2022
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. 73 of 2022 pending before the first
respondent police, even though, the offences involved are not
compoundable in nature.
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.73 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.
04.08.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
aav
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Souththamaraikulam Police Station
Kanyakumari District
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14173of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14173 of 2022
04.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
