Madras High Court
Murugan vs The State Through on 24 June, 2022
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11244 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11244 of 2022
1.Murugan
2.Saramari
3.Minor Kannan
4.Mohan ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4
Vs.
1.The State through
The Inspector of Police,
M.Reddiyapatti Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.39 of 2022) ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Arumugam ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for records relating to the FIR in crime No.39 of 2022 dated
24.04.2022 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu
For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthikumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.B.Muneeswaran
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11244 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.39 of 2022, dated 24.04.2022 on the file of the first respondent
police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that due to pathway dispute, on
24.04.2022 there was a wordy quarrel arose between the petitioners and the
defacto complainant, in which, the petitioners attacked the 2nd
respondent/defacto complainant and abused him with filthy language and
also criminally intimidated him. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a
complaint against the petitioners and the same was registered in Crime No.
39 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and
506(ii) 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11244 of 2022
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
Mr.M.Abraham, SSI of Police, Paralachi Police Station, M.Reddiyapatti
P.S. (incharge). 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), 323, 324 and 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11244 of 2022
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.39 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.39 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.
24.06.2022
Internet:Yes./No
Index:Yes/no
vsd
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
M.Reddiyapatti Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Cr.No.39 of 2022)
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11244 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
vsd
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11244 of 2022
24.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
