Madras High Court
Bharathiraj vs State Throughout on 6 July, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12055 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12055 of 2022
1. Bharathiraj,
2. Kavi @ Kavikumar,
3. B.Karan @ Saran Kumar,
4. B.Karthikraja,
5. C.Selvam @ Nambuselvam,
6. R.Vinith,
7. M.Gowtham,
8. D.Manoj @ Anbumanoj,
9. Manivannan,
: Petitioners
Vs
1.State throughout
The Inspector of Police,
Chatrakudi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(In Crime No.46 of 2019).
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12055 of 2022
2. Dhivakar,
: Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
this Court to call for the entire records connected with the case in PRC No.5
of 2020, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District and quash the same.
For Petitioner : M/s.Malaikani S,
For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Charge Sheet
in P.R.C.No.5 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram Distirct, for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148,, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1) of
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, in Crime No.46 of 2019.
2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the
petitioners attacked the second respondent. Hence, the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12055 of 2022
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.
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.K.Chandran, SSI of Police, Chatrakudi 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
147, 148,, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12055 of 2022
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 P.R.C.No.5 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram Distirct, 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 P.R.C.No.5 of 2020 pending on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram Distirct, is
quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel
of this order.
06.07.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
lr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12055 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
lr
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Chatrakudi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12055 of 2022
06.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
