Kannan vs The State Represented By
2022 Latest Caselaw 11191 Mad

                                                                         Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11274 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.11274 of 2022

                     1. Kannan
                     2. Raja
                     3. Mayalagan                            ... Petitioners/ Accused No. 1 to 3
                                                           Vs

                     1.The State represented by
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       Vadipatty Police Station,
                       Madurai District.
                       (Crime No.171 of 2022)               ... 1st Respondent/Complainant

                     2. Balaji                        ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
                     praying to call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.171 of 2022,
                     on the file of the first respondent police as far as these petitioners are
                     concerned.


                                         For Petitioners    : Mr.Senthil Murugan
                                         For R1             : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
                                                              Government Advocate (Crl Side)
                                         For R2             : Mr.R.Shenbagaraj



                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11274 of 2022


                                                            ORDER

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

Crime No.171 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent police.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, the defacto complainant is

working as Supervisor in a Chicken poultry running in the name of Super

Chicken. On 24.05.2022 his company driver has transported chicken from

Palladam to Thethur Village, when they reached Thethur Chicken Poultry,

these petitioners and 20 others have waylaid the vehicle and thereby caused

intimidation and abused the Defacto Complainant with filthy language and

threatened with dire consequences. Hence, he lodged a complaint before the

respondent police and the same was registered in Crime No.171 of 2022 for

the offences under Sections 147, 341, 294(b) and 506(i) 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.11274 of 2022

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government

Advocate and the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that

now, the petitioners and the second respondent 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.Udayakumar, SSI - III,

Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai 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 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, 341, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11274 of 2022

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.171 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.171 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11274 of 2022

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Vadipatty Police Station, Madurai 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.11274 of 2022

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

ebsi

ORDER IN CRL.O.P (MD) No.11274 of 2022

27.06.2022

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