Madras High Court
Uthayakumar vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 July, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11541 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.11541 of 2022
1. Uthayakumar,
2. Sukumar,
3. Kirivasan @ Girivaasan,
: Petitioners
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
Kattupudhur Police Station,
Kattupudhur,
Trichy District.
Crime No.125 of 2022.
2. Kirthika @ Kiruthika,
: Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in
Crime No.125 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police and quash
the same as illegal as against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11541 of 2022
For Petitioners : M/s.Vadivelan T,
For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.K.Arunraj
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.125 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the on 26.05.2022, the
petitioners went to the second respondent's house and quarrelled with her
younger brother. The second respondent tried to rescue her brother, but the
petitioners pulled her down and threatened with dire consequences. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11541 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
Mr.R.Thirugnanam, Gr-I of Police, Kattuputhur 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 294(b) and 323 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
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.11541 of 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.125 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.125 of 2022 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.
04.07.2022
Internet:Yes./No
Index:Yes/no
lr
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Kattupudhur Police Station,
Kattupudhur,
Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11541 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
lr
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11541 of 2022
04.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
