Marimuthu vs State Represented By
2022 Latest Caselaw 11802 Mad

                                                                   Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11623 of 2022

                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED: 04.07.2022

                                                    CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

                                          Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11623 of 2022

                     Marimuthu,
                                                                                   : Petitioner

                                                       Vs

                     1. State represented by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Soorangudi Police Station,
                     Thoothukudi District

                     2. Ramalakshmi,
                                                                             : Respondents


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
                     praying to call for the records in connection with the C.C No. 191 of
                     2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam,
                     Thoothukudi district and quash the same as illegal as against the
                     petitioner.
                                 For petitioner     : M/s.Pandiarajan P,
                                 For Respondent : Mr.A.Albert James,
                                                    Government Advocate (Crl.Side)




                     1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                          Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11623 of 2022

                                                           ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Charge

Sheet in C.C.No.191 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi district, for the offences

punishable under Sections 294(b) and 323 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil

Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.104 of

2015.

2.The case of the prosecution is that a cow, which belongs to the

second respondent trespassed into the petitioner's house and drank some

water. Due to this, there was a wordy quarrel between them and then, the

petitioner attacked the second respondent. 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.11623 of 2022

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.Alagu Raj, Gr-I of Police, Soorankudi Police Station,

Thoothukudi District 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 294(b) and 323 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil

Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11623 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.191 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi district, 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.191 of 2015 on the file of the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi district, is

quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and

parcel of this order.

04.07.2022

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order lr

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11623 of 2022

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Soorangudi Police Station, Thoothukudi District

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11623 of 2022

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

lr

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11623 of 2022

04.07.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis