Madras High Court
Alagumalai vs The Inspector Of Police on 5 July, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12010 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P (MD) No.12010 of 2022
1. Alagumalai
2. Sathish Kumar
3. Rajaram
4. Sivaprakash @ Prakash ... Petitioners/ Accused No.1 to 4
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
Viruveedu Police Station,
Dindigul District.
Crime No.122 of 2022. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Nagaraj ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No.121
of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police station and quash the same
in respect of the petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 4.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Joseph Jerry
For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl Side)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12010 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.121 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent.
2.The contention of the petitioners is that based on the complaint
lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered First
Information Report in Crime No.121 of 2022 for the offences punishable
under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, against the petitioners.
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. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a case
and case in counter and the defacto complainant and the accused persons
settled the matter out of the Court and they have filed a Joint Memo of
Compromise before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12010 of 2022
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 the learned Government Advocate
and the Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, Dindigul District.
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 in Crime No.121 of
2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and
506(ii) 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.12010 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.121 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.121 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.
.
05.07.2022
Internet:Yes./No
Index:Yes/no
ebsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12010 of 2022
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Viruveedu Police Station,
Dindigul 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.12010 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
ebsi
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.12010 of 2022
05.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
