Madras High Court
Kilukku @ Satham Hussain vs The State Represented By Its on 2 February, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22723 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.02.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22723 of 2022
1.Kilukku @ Satham Hussain
2.Sahul Hameed ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State represented by its
The Inspector of Police,
Melur Police Station,
Madurai District.
Crime No.675 of 2022.
2.Seenivasan @ Thongakara Seeni ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records in relating to the
Crime No.675 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police under
Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Aravind Raj,
For R1 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.M.Velladhurai,
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22723 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section
482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders, to call for the entire records in relating to
the Crime No.675 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police under
Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the
petitioners abused the defacto complainant and his daughters in filthy
language. Hence, the complaint.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second
respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent and on that
basis, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.675 of 2022, dated
14.11.2022 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC,
against the petitioners.
4. The case is still under the 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.22723 of 2022
5. 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.R.Jeyanthan, SSI, Melur Police Station 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. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court
has power to quash the complaint for the offences under Sections 294(b)
and 506(ii) IPC.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22723 of 2022
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 Crime No.675 of 2022 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 Crime No.675 of 2022 on the file of the
first respondent police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise
memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
02.02.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
das
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22723 of 2022
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Melur Police Station,
Madurai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22723 of 2022
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
das
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22723 of 2022
Dated: 02.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
