Madras High Court
G.Maheshwaran vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 27 June, 2022
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11403 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.11403 of 2022
G.Maheshwaran ...Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Veerapandi Police Station,
Theni District.
(Crime No.617 of 2010) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Ramesh ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records pertaining to the above charge sheet in C.C.No.450 of 2011 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate, Theni and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan
For R1 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabhakar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.K.Rajeshwaran
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.450 of
2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni as against the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11403 of 2022
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner used to purchase
broiler chicken from the second respondent/defacto complainant and in such
course of business transactions, it is alleged that the petitioner has to pay a sum
of Rs.5.21 lakhs. When the defacto complainant/second respondent requested
the petitioner to settle the balance amount immediately, a wordy quarrel arose
between them, in which, the petitioner had physically attacked the second
respondent/defacto complainant and also threatened him with dire
consequences. Hence, the complaint.
3.The case is under trial. 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 petitioner and the second respondent and also by their
respective counsel. The petitioner and the second respondent were also present
in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.K.Pounraj, SSI of
Police, Veerapandi Police Station. 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 with regard to the money and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11403 of 2022
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
406, 420 and 506(i) 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 C.C.No.450 of 2011 pending before the Judicial Magistrate,
Theni, 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 C.C.No.450 of 2011 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate, Theni is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall
form part and parcel of this order.
27.06.2022
Internet:Yes./No
Index:Yes/no
vsd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11403 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
vsd
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Theni.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Veerapandi Police Station,
Theni District.
3.Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11403 of 2022
27.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
