Madras High Court
Gopinath Munusamy vs The State Rep By on 14 October, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.24223 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.O.P.No.24223 of 2022
1. Gopinath Munusamy
2. Arun Kumar
3. Venkatesan
4. Ranjith Kumar
5.Alavanthan
6. Ajith Kumar
7. Agathiyan
8.Sarath Kumar
9. Nivas
10. Vignesh
11. Diraj Kumar
12. Suriya
13. Yuvaraj ...petitioners
Vs
1. The State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Kalambur Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai
(Cr.No.47 of 2019)
2. Vijay ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR registered in
Cr.No.47 of 2019 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24223 of 2022
For petitioners : Mr.Jerry V.V.Sundar
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.R.Ranjith Kumar for R2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in
Cr.No.47 of 2019 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
defacto complainant and the accused persons had settled their dispute out
of court and the offences stated in the FIR are private in nature and they
are not having any criminal antecedents.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first
respondent has submitted that since the petitioners are not having any
criminal antecedents, the defacto complainant do not want to continue
criminal proceeding against the petitioners and hence they settled the
dispute out of court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24223 of 2022
4.The case is still in the stage of investigation. By passage of time,
the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute
amicably among themselves.
5. A Compromise Affidavit 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 the 1 st
respondent as well as by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties.
This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties
have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
6. 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 power to quash the complaint for the offence under
Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC and 307 of IPC and 3
(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24223 of 2022
7.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.
8.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 Cr.No.47 of 2019 pending before the first respondent police,
even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.
9.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as
a sequel, the proceedings in Cr.No.47 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.
14.10.2022
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
gv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24223 of 2022
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Kalambur Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai
(Cr.No.47 of 2019)
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24223 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM.,J
gv
Crl.O.P.No.24223 of 2022
14.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
