Madras High Court
K.Pazhanimurugan @ ... vs State Through on 27 June, 2022
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11396 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.11396 of 2022
K.Pazhanimurugan @ Palanimurugan ...Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.State through
The Inspector of Police,
Erwadi Dharga Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.P.Santhi @ Santhi Priaya ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records relating to the F.I.R. in Crime No.50 of 2021
pending before the first respondent police (The Inspector of Police, Erwadi
Dharga Police Station, Ramanathapuram District) and quash all the further
proceedings as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ramanathan
For R1 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.A.Alexander
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11396 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.50 of 2021, on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the husband and
the defacto complainant is the wife. When the defacto complainant was
sleeping in her house, the petitioner attacked her with iron road, abused her
with filthy language, threatened her with dire consequences and caused
injuries to her. Hence the complaint.
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 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.A.Chandrasekar, SSI of Police, Erwadi Dharga Police Station,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11396 of 2022
Ramanathapuram 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 294(b), 326, 498(A), 506 (ii) and 307 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.50 of 2021 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.11396 of 2022
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a
sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.50 of 2021 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
vsd
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Erwadi Dharga 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.11396 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
vsd
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.11396 of 2022
27.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
