Madras High Court
Arul Stalin vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 August, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14503 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:12.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14503 of 2022
1. Arul Stalin,
2. Prakash,
3. Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep,
: Petitioners
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kulsekharam Police Station,
Kanyakumari District
(Crime No. 264 of 2012).
2. Shiju,
: Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to call for records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.
1197 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Padmanabhapuram, Kanniyakumari and quash the same.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14503 of 2022
For Petitioners : M/s.Appaji.C.K.M.,
For R1 : Mr.A.Albert James,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 :Mr.R.Mohanasundaram
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Charge
Sheet in C.C.No. 1197 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram, Kanniyakumari, for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 323 IPC in Crime No.264 of
2012.
2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the
petitioners abused the second respondent with filthy language, assaulted
him with vettukathi and caused injuries to him. Hence the complaint.
3.The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have
decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably
among themselves.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14503 of 2022
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 Mrs.B.Bauhynasuki, WHC of Police, Kulasakharam 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 341, 294(b), 324, 323 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14503 of 2022
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 C.C.No. 1197 of 2018, on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram, Kanniyakumari 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 C.C.No. 1197 of 2018, on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram, Kanniyakumari is
quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and
parcel of this order.
12.08.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
lr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14503 of 2022
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Kulsekharam Police Station,
Kanyakumari District
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14503 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
lr
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14503 of 2022
12.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
