Madras High Court
Sathees @ Sathish vs The State Represented By on 13 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10161 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.10161 of 2022
1. Sathees @ Sathish,
2. Veeraganesh,
3. Muthuraja,
4. Surya,
5. Suryaprakash,
6. Aasai @ Periyasamy @ Veerapandiyan,
7. Gangadharan,
8. Chandru, : Petitioners
Vs
1. The state represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppuvanam Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
Crime No. 101 of 2022.
2. Sethupathiraja, : Respondents
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10161 of 2022
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
this Court to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime.No. 101 of
2022 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : M/s. Paul Murugesh.S.,
For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime.No. 101 of 2022, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323,
324, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Women Act, 2002, on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, there was
a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. They
also attacked the defacto complainant. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10161 of 2022
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.J.Santhana
Raj, SSI of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station, Sivagangai 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,
148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
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.10161 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 No101 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 No101 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
(2/3)
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
lr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10161 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
lr
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppuvanam Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10161 of 2022
13.06.2022
(2/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
