Madras High Court
D.Pradeep vs The State Represented By on 22 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10837 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10837 of 2022
1. D.Pradeep
2. M.Rajesh ... Petitioners/
Accused 2&3
Vs
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Koodankulam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.162 of 2020) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2. M.Jegan ...2nd Respondent/
Defacto
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in Crime No.162
of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District and quash the same in respect of the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Kesavan,
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1
Mr.N.Thinakaran for R2
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10837 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.162 of 2020, dated 28.05.2020, on the file of the first respondent.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 27.05.2020 at about
03.30 p.m., when the second respondent returned from temple, the
petitioners and the first accused attacked the second respondent and abused
him. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint and for the same,
an FIR had been registered in Crime No.162 of 2020, for the offences under
Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 427 of IPC.
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
also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent
were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10837 of 2022
Mr.Paramasivan, Grade I 3150, Koodankulam Police Station. This Court
also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to
an amicable settlement between themselves.
5.The petitioners and the defacto complainant are same residence and
the defacto complainant does not want to continue the criminal proceedings
against the petitioners. Under these circumstances, continuing the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners would be of no use.
6.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, 324 and 427 of IPC.
7.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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10837 of 2022
8.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.162 of 2020 pending before the first respondent
police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.
9.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a
sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.162 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.
22.06.2022
Internet:Yes./No
Index:Yes/no
csm
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Koodankulam Police Station,
Tirunelveli 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.10837 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
csm
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10837 of 2022
22.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
