Madras High Court
Hari Vignesh vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 10 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8389 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P (MD) No.8389 of 2022
1. Hari Vignesh
2. Rajasekar
3. Vinothkumar
4. Periyandavar ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Sub Inspector of Police,
Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.85/2022).
2. I. Sonamuthu ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.85 of 2022, on the file of the first
respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.M. Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James (R1)
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Mr.A.Karthik (R2)
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8389 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.85 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/defacto
complainant is the conductor of the bus bearing Reg.TN-58-N-1294 “48 U”.
On 20.04.2022 at 08.15 a.m, the petitioners were travelled in the said bus.
Since the petitioners were hanging on the steps of the bus, the defacto
complainant/second respondent shouted them. Due to which, the petitioners
grabbed the defacto complainant by the arm and pushed him into the abyss.
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 petitioners and the second respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8389 of 2022
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.C.Malaiyan, SSI of Police, Thirumangalam Taluk 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 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), 323, 332, 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 Crime No.85 of 2022 pending before the first respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8389 of 2022
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.85 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.
10.06.2022
Internet:Yes./No
Index:Yes/no
PNM
Note: Issue order copy on 16.06.2022
To
1. The Sub Inspector of Police,
Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.85/2022).
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8389 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.8389 of 2022
10.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
