Sivasubramanian vs State Rep. By
2022 Latest Caselaw 9992 Mad

                                                                            CRL.O.P(MD)No.10462 of 2022


                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED: 14.06.2022

                                                        CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

                                            CRL.O.P(MD)No.10462 of 2022

                     1.Sivasubramanian
                     2.Rajapandi
                     3.Gnanasoundari
                     4.Muneeswaran
                     5.Jothi
                     6.Kalaiselvi                            ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6

                                                            Vs

                     1.State rep. by
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       Peraiyur Police Station,
                       Ramanathapuram District.
                       (Cr.No.101 of 2019)                   ...1st Respondent/Complainant

                     2.Ramar                                ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
                     praying to call for the records in Crime No.101 of 2019 on the file of the
                     first respondent and quash the same.
                                     For Petitioners   : Mr.V.Ramalingam
                                     For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
                                                       Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
                                                       Mr.S.Muniyandi for R2


                     1/5


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  CRL.O.P(MD)No.10462 of 2022




                                                             ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in

Crime No.101 of 2019, on the file of the first respondent police.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners' father

namely Sakkarayutham sold the property to an extent about 1 ½ acre and

thereby, he repaid the loan received by the defacto complainant. Therefore,

there arose a dispute between the family members. In the meantime, the

petitioners conspired together and attacked the defacto complainant by

using their hands and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the

complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute

arose between the petitioners and the defacto complainant with regard to

proposed sale of family properties and now it is compromised.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent police submitted that in this case investigation has been

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P(MD)No.10462 of 2022

completed and final report has also been filed and the same was taken on

file in C.C.No.72 of 2021 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi.

5.By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet

and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

6.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.P.Vijayaraman, SSI of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Ramnad District.

This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties

have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

7.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, 323, 324, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P(MD)No.10462 of 2022

8.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.

9.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.101 of 2019 pending before the first respondent

police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

10.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as

a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.101 of 2019 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.

14.06.2022 Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no vsd

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P(MD)No.10462 of 2022

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

vsd

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER IN CRL.O.P(MD)No.10462 of 2022

14.06.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis