Madras High Court
M.Tamilselvi vs The State Represented By on 25 July, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4938 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P (MD) No.4938 of 2020
M.Tamilselvi
Represented by Registered
P.O.A. Er.V.Kanakarajan ... Petitioner/ Accused No.1
Vs
1. The State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station,
Madurai District,
Madurai – 625 019.
(in Crime No.88 of 2019) ... 1st Respondent/ Complainant
2. Abdul Raheem ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to quash the proceedings initiated on the basis of First Information
Report case in Crime No.88 of 2019 against this petitioner for the offences
under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) I.P.C. lodged at Nagamalai
Pudhukkottai Police Station, Madurai – 625019.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4938 of 2020
For Petitioner : M/s.Ajmal Associates
for Mr.H.Mohamed Imran
For R1 : Mr.A.Albert James
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.88 of 2019, on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The contention of the petitioner is that based on the complaint
lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered First
Information Report in Crime No.88 of 2019 for the offences punishable
under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) I.P.C., against the petitioner.
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.4938 of 2020
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto
complainant and the accused person 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 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 the learned
Government Advocate and Mr.P.Arul Pandi, SSI of Police, Nagamalai
Pudukkottai Police Station, Madurai 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 for the offence under
Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) I.P.C.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4938 of 2020
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 Crime No.88 of 2019 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.88 of 2019 on the file of the first
respondent police, is quashed insofar as the petitioner alone and the terms of
joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
25.07.2022
Internet:Yes./No
Index:Yes/no
ebsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4938 of 2020
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station,
Madurai 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.4938 of 2020
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
ebsi
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.4938 of 2020
25.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
