Madras High Court
Santhiu @ Prenjith vs State Rep. By on 28 March, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23091 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23091 of 2022
Santhiu @ Prenjith ... Petitioner/A4
Vs.
1.State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Thirupullani Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
Crime No.38 of 2022
2.Baskaran
3.Muthukrishnan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.38 of
2022, dated 12.02.2022, for the offences under Sections 147, 148,
294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC and quash the same as illegal as
against the petitioner/accused.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balamurugapandi
For R-1 : Mr.B.Nambiselvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R-2 & R-3 : No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23091 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in FIR in
Crime No.38 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity
between the parties, the petitioner along with other accused persons
assembled in front of the second respondent/defacto complainant's house
and attacked the second respondent/defacto complainant and his brother.
Thereby, the second respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner
before the first respondent police and the same was registered in Crime
No.38 of 2022 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC.
3.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of this
petition, the matter was compromised between the parties and he has also
filed a Joint Memo of Compromise before this Court, dated 12.07.2024,
which was duly signed by both parties and their respective counsels.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23091 of 2022
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first
respondent did not dispute the said facts submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
5.When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters in
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.406, 530 and 864 of 2016 (Prabu and others vs.
State Rep. By The Inspector of Police and others), decided on
28.01.2016, this Court considered the various decisions rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in several cases, namely, Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], B.S.Joshi
vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI
[(2008) 9 SCC 677], Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab
and another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Manish and others [(2015) 8 SCC 307] and observed as under:
“11. If the offences against women and children and the
IPC offences falling under the categories, like, murder, attempt
to murder, offence against unsound mind, rape, bribe,
fabrication of documents, false evidence, robbery, dacoity,
abduction, kidnapping, minor girl rape, idol theft, preventing a
public servant from discharging of his/her duty, outrage of
woman modesty, counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes,
etc., are allowed to be compounded, it will surely have serious
repercussion on the society, as the above mentioned list is only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23091 of 2022
illustrative and not exhaustive. Similarly, any compromise
between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences
clubbed with Special Enactment, like Arms Act, the
Prevention of Corruption Act, TNPPDL Act, TNPID Act or the
offences committed by Public Servants while working in that
capacity, etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences. As held by the
Apex Court, insofar the offences arising out of matrimonial
dispute, relating to dowry or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in nature, are concerned,
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, in case the
parties resolve their entire disputes amicably among
themselves. This Court feels that there cannot be any
compromise in respect of the heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity and in that case, the Court should be very
slow in accepting the compromise. If the compromise is
entertained mechanically by the Court, the accused will have
the upper hand. The jurisdiction of this Court may not be
allowed to be exploited by the accused, who can well afford to
wait for a logical conclusion. The antecedents of the accused
have also to be taken into consideration before accepting the
memo of compromise and the accused, by means of
compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.
6.Taking note of the judgments referred to supra,
considering the nature of allegations and in view of joint memo of
compromise dated 12.07.2023, this Court is of the opinion that no useful
purpose would be served in keeping the matters pending. Therefore, the
impugned FIR in Crime No.38 of 2022 in respect of the petitioner/A4 is
hereby quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23091 of 2022
7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on
the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The joint
compromise memo dated 12.07.2023 shall form part of this order.
28.03.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Sji
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Thirupullani 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.23091 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI. J.
Sji
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23091 of 2022
28.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
