Madras High Court
Thirukumar vs The Inspector Of Police on 11 August, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14387 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:11.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14387of 2022
1. Thirukumar
2. Viji @ Vijayakumar
3. Kilavachamy ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
Kamuthu Police Station
Ramanathapuram District
2. Kesavamoorthy ....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.250 of
2022on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Babu Jaganath
For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James
No.1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
No.2 : Mr.S.Karthikeyan
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14387 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
250 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police
2.The case of the prosecution is that due to money dispute, the
petitioners herein abused the defacto complainant and also threatened
with dire consequences, hence the case came to be registered.
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 Mr.G.Sankar, HC 1873,Kamuthi Police Station as well as
by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. This Court also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14387 of 2022
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 between the husband and wife
and now 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 341,294(b),506(i) of IPC
r/w.Sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act,
2003.
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. 250 of 2022 pending before the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14387 of 2022
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.250 of 2022 on the file of the
first respondent police respondent police, is quashed insofar as the
petitioners alone and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part
and parcel of this order.
11.08.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
aav
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Kamuthu Police Station
Ramanathapuram District
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14387 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14387 of 2022
11.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
