Paraniselvam vs The State Rep. By
2022 Latest Caselaw 10644 Mad

                                                                            CRL.O.P (MD) No.11047 of 2022


                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED: 21.06.2022

                                                        CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

                                              CRL.O.P (MD) No.11047 of 2022

                     1.Paraniselvam
                     2.Praveen
                     3.Thivakar @ Palpandi                       ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3

                                                           Vs.

                     1.The State rep. by
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       Vaigaidam Police Station,
                       Theni District.
                       (Cr.No.17 of 2022)                    ...1st Respondent/Complainant

                     2.Nagajothi                        ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

                     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.17 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the
                     same.


                                     For Petitioners   : Mr.B.Arun
                                     For R1            : Mr.M.Sakthikumar
                                                         Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
                                     For R2 - R3       : Mr.S.Pradeep


                     1/5


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              CRL.O.P (MD) No.11047 of 2022


                                                           ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in

Crime No.17 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent police.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto

complainant's husband are doing real estate business and they are family

friends. The third respondent, who is the husband of the defacto

complainant purchased a property on behalf of the second petitioner and he

developed friendship with the second petitioner's sister. The third petitioner

came to the house of the defacto complainant on 01.04.2022 at about 02.30

pm and informed the defacto complainant that her husband met with an

accident and he is the house of the first petitioner. When she went there,

she saw her husband was unconscious. Hence, she took him to K.Vilaku

Government Hospital and she admitted him there. After recovering

conscious, third respondent told her that due to land dispute, the petitioners

attacked him and abused him in filthy language. Hence, the complaint.

Hence, the complaint.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P (MD) No.11047 of 2022

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.A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court

which have been signed by the petitioners and the second and third

respondents and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the

second and third respondents were also present in person before this Court

and they were identified by Mr.S.Venkatesan, SSI of Police, Vaigaidam

Police Station, Theni 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 civil 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), 324, 506(ii) IPC @ Section 326 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P (MD) No.11047 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.17 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.17 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.

21.06.2022 Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no vsd

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Vaigaidam Police Station, Theni District.

(Cr.No.17 of 2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P (MD) No.11047 of 2022

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

vsd

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER IN CRL.O.P (MD) No.11047 of 2022

21.06.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis