Madras High Court
Chelian @ Shakthivel vs State Represented By on 20 January, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23133 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23133 of 2022
Chelian @ Shakthivel, : Petitioner
Vs
1. State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Umatchikulam Police Station,
Madurai District.
Crime No.79 of 2016
2. Muthukumar, : Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crime No.79 of 2016,
dated 26.02.2016 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the
FIR as for as the petitioner herein.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Devasenan
For R1 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.R.Ilayaraja
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23133 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section
482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the First
Information Report in Crime No.79 of 2016 on the file of the first
respondent police and quash the same as illegal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to money dispute, the
defacto complainant lodged the complainant.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner 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.79 of 2016 dated
26.02.2016 for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against the
petitioner.
4.The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent would
submit that the second respondent has received the entire amount from
the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23133 of 2022
5. 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.
6. A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court
which have been signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and
also by their respective counsel. The petitioner and the second
respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were
identified by Mr.S.Selva Narayanan, Sub Inspector of Police, Kottar
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.
7. In the instant case, it is a family dispute and now the parties had
compromised. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High
Court has power to quash the complaint for the offences under Sections
406 and 420 IPC.
8. The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23133 of 2022
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.
9. 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.79 of 2016 pending before the
first respondent police, even though, the offences involved are not
compoundable in nature.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed
and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.79 of 2016 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.
20.01.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
lr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23133 of 2022
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Umatchikulam 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.23133 of 2022
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
lr
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23133 of 2022
Dated: 20.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
