Madras High Court
Satham Usain vs The State Of Tamil Nadu ... on 27 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10100 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10100 of 2022
1. Satham Usain
2. Rasik Ali @ Rasiksha
3. Mohamed Yasick @ Yasith
4. Kurshif Rahim @ Kursith
5. Ahamed Ibrahim @ Ahemmd
6. Dineshkumar @ Dinesh
7. Abubakersitiq @ Abubakar ... Petitioners/ Accused
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kenikarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.227 of 2022) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Mohamed Musthak
... 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 FIR in Crime No.227 of
2022, dated 24.03.2022 on the file of the respondent police and quash the
same as illegal.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10100 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Mahendrarajan
For R1 : Mr.A.Albert James
Government Advocate (Crl Side)
For R2 : Mr.S.Vikram
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.227 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that, the defacto complainant is
working as an Engineer in Velumanickam Contractor, Ramanathapuram.
There was a previous motive between the defacto complainant and the
accused No.1. Due to that, on 24.03.2022 at about 6 p.m, when the defacto
complainant was waiting for his friend in Kaloogoorani Bus Stand,
Rameshwaram, the petitioners were came to spot and abducted the defacto
complainant to nearby garden and assaulted him on his all over body and
threatened him with filthy language. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged
a complaint before the respondent police and the same was registered in
Crime No. 227 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 324,
365 and 506(ii) of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10100 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. The learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government
Advocate and the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that
the petitioners and the second respondent are relatives and they have
compromised the matter and settled the dispute out of the Court and to that
effect they have been filed a Joint Memo of Compromise 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 the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and Mr.V.Nagarajan, SSI,
Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. This Court also
enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an
amicable settlement between themselves.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10100 of 2022
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 147, 294(b), 324, 365 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.
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.227 of 2022 pending before the first respondent
police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10100 of 2022
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a
sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.227 of 2022 on the file of the first
respondent police, is quashed insofar as the petitioner alone and the terms of
joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
27.06.2022
Internet:Yes./No
Index:Yes/no
ebsi
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Kenikarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram 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.10100 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
ebsi
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10100 of 2022
27.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
