Madras High Court
Pandian vs The State Represented By Its on 31 January, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 31.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21 of 2023
1.Pandian
2.Muthupandi
3.Ramachandran
4.Krishnan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State represented by its
The Inspector of Police,
R.S.Mangalam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.Sasikumar @ Sasi ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the impugned
FIR in Crime No.223 of 2022, dated 31.08.2022 on the file of the first
respondent Police and quash them as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Saravanan,
For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for R1.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21 of 2023
: Mr.M.Jeyakumar, for R2.
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section
482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders, to call for the records relating to the
impugned FIR in Crime No.223 of 2022, dated 31.08.2022 on the file of
the first respondent Police and quash them as illegal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity
between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, the petitioners
abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and threatened him
with dire consequences. 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.223 of 2022, dated
31.08.2022 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii)
IPC against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21 of 2023
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.
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.A.David, SSI, R.S.Mangalam 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),
323, 324 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21 of 2023
(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 Crime No.223 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.223 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.
31.01.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
das
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21 of 2023
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
R.S.Mangalam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram 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.21 of 2023
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
das
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21 of 2023
Dated: 31.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
