Madras High Court
Berkmans vs The State Represented By on 7 October, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18021 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18021 of 2022
1.Berkmans
2.Panipitchai
3.Alwin
4.Aruldhas
5.Thanislaus
6.Yesudhas
7.Xavier
8.Mariya Stanislaus @ Chinnakutty
9.Rajini @ Rejini ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Karungal Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
2.Micheal Adimai
3.Antony Adimai ....Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18021 of 2022
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records pertaining to S.C.No.85 of 2022 on the file
of the Sub-Court, Eraniel and quash the same insofar as the petitioners
are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For Respondents : Mr.S.Manikandan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)for R.1
Mr.D.Venkatesh for R.2 & R.3
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Charge
Sheet in S.C.No.85 of 2022 on the file of the Sub-Court, Eraniel.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity on
29.05.2010 at about 10.00 pm., when the second respondent was chatting
with the third respondent in front of the house,all the accused persons
gathered together and caused injuries, for which a case has been
registered in Crime No.13 of 2014 and after investigation the case has
been charge sheeted in S.C.No.85 of 2022 on the file of the Sub-Court,
Eraniel.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18021 of 2022
3. The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have
decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably
among themselves. The petitioners were ranked as A2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14
and 15 in S.C.No.85 of 2022. But the FIR was lodged as against 19
accused. Some of the accused persons were died. The case was split up in
S.C.No.85 of 2022 in the Sub Court, Eraniel. Due of the advice of the
elders in the village, they have compromised the matter. The defacto
complainant is not interested to proceed further.
4. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that
the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. A
Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have
been signed by the petitioners and the second and third respondents and
also by their respective counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18021 of 2022
5. In the instant case, the dispute between the parties have been
compromised out of court. 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), 324 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 S.C.No.85 of 2022 on the file of the Sub-Court,
Eraniel, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in
nature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18021 of 2022
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
as a sequel, the proceedings in S.C.No.85 of 2022 on the file of the Sub-
Court, Eraniel is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall
form part and parcel of this order.
07.10.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
btr/sm
To
1.The Sub-Court,
Eraniel.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Karungal Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18021 of 2022
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
btr/sm
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18021 of 2022
07.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
