Madras High Court
Sivaraman vs The State Represented By on 9 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16132 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16132 of 2022
1. Sivaraman,
2. Mayilsamy,
3. Thulasimani,
4. Velmani @ Valumani,
5. Sathish,
S/o.Karuppasamy
6. Sathish,
S/o.Sellamuthu
7. Muthuselvan,
8. Nattudurai,
: Petitioners
Vs
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kallimadiyam Police Station,
Dindigul District
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16132 of 2022
2. Sivakumar,
: Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
this Court to call for the records in respect of Crime No.892/2020 on the file
of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Venkatesh D,
For R1 : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.892/2020 on the file of the first respondent.
2.The case of the prosecution is that due to money dispute, the
petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant and also threatened him with
dire consequences. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16132 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 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.
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, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 365, 343, 465 and 506(ii) 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.16132 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.892/2020 on the file of the first respondent, 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.892/2020 on the file of the first
respondent, is quashed insofar as the petitioners alone and the terms of joint
compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
09.09.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
LR/PNM
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Kallimadiyam Police Station,
Dindigul District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16132 of 2022
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16132 of 2022
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
LR/PNM
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16132 of 2022
09.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
