Madras High Court
P.Maharajan vs The State Represented By on 13 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10096 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10096 of 2022
1.P.Maharajan
2.N.Rengaraj @ Rengasamy ... Petitioners
Vs
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Sipcot Police Station,
Thoothukudi
2.Manikandan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records in connection with Crime No.28 of 2022,
dated 24.01.2022, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same in
respect of the petitioners.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10096 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Pandiarajan
For R1 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.28 of 2022, dated 24.01.2022, on the file of the first respondent.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the The first petitioner had
purchased a car from Asir Aurtomobile Private Limited. After first service,
there was an engine problem in the said car. Hence, the first petitioner
approached the second respondent, who is a service manager in the said
private firm. But, the second respondent refused to rectify the engine under
claim warranty. Therefore, there was a wordy quarrel between the
petitioners and the second respondent and they attacked the second
respondent. Thereafter, the first petitioner lodged a complaint against the
second respondent.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10096 of 2022
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
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.S.Sivasankaran, SSI of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Thoothukudi. 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, 355, 506(1) 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10096 of 2022
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.28 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.28 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.
13.06.2022
Internet:Yes./No
Index:Yes/no
lr
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Sipcot Police Station,
Thoothukudi
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10096 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
lr
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10096 of 2022
13.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
