Madras High Court
Muthukumar vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 16 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10639 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10639 of 2022
1. Muthukumar
: Petitioner
Vs
1. The Assistant Commissioner Of Police,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kurumbur Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
Crime No.87 of 2022
3. Muthuprakash,
4. Ramasubramaniyan,
: Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records on FIR in Crime No.87 of 2022 on the file of
the second respondent and quash the same.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10639 of 2022
For petitioner : M/s.Angusamy V,
For R1 and R2 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.87 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 341, 394(b), 324 and
506(2) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,
2015, on the file of the second respondent.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.06.2022, the defacto
complainant and the fourth respondent trespassed into the petitioner's
garden. Hence, there was quarrel between the petitioner and the private
respondents. In this quarrel, it is said that the private respondent was
abused with their caste name. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10639 of 2022
amicably among themselves.
4.A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court
which have been signed by the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 and
also by their respective counsel. The petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4
were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by
Mr.A.Arumuga Nainar, SSI of Police, Kurumbur Police Station. 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 341, 394(b), 324 and 506(2) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(a)
and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
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.10639 of 2022
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.87 of 2022 pending before the second 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.87 of 2022 on the file of the second
respondent police, is quashed insofar as the petitioner alone and the terms of
joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
16.06.2022
Internet:Yes./No
Index:Yes/no
lr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10639 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
lr
To
1. The Assistant Commissioner Of Police,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kurumbur Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10639 of 2022
16.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
