Madras High Court
Lakshmanan vs The State Rep. By on 21 June, 2022
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10132 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.10132 of 2022
1.Lakshmanan
2.Sakthi @ Sakthisvaran ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2
Vs.
1.The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Thazhamuthunagar Police Station.
Thoothukudi District.
(Cr.No.249 of 2020) ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Santhiyagu ... 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.249 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Balakrishnan
For R1 : Mr.A.Albert James
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.R.Narmathan
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10132 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.249 of 2020 , on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is a tenant and
the 2nd respondent/defacto Complainant is a land lord. When the defacto
complainant requested the first petitioner to vacate the house, there was a
misunderstanding between the first petitioner and the second respondent.
Due to which, on 24.05.2020 at 9.00 p.m. a wordy quarrel arose between the
first petitioner and the defacto complainant. Hence, the petitioners abused
the defacto complainant in filthy language and also attacked him with iron
pipe and caused injuries. 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10132 of 2022
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.A.Maria Irudayam, SI of Police, Thazhamuthunagar Police Station,
Thoothukudi 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 448, 294(b), 324, 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10132 of 2022
proceedings in Crime No.249 of 2020 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.249 of 2020 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,
Thazhamuthunagar Police Station.
Thoothukudi District.
(Cr.No.249 of 2020)
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10132 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
vsd
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10132 of 2022
21.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
