Madras High Court
Sonaimuthu vs State Of Tamil Nadu Through on 6 November, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19071 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19071 of 2024
1.Sonaimuthu
2.Chuzhiyan @ Chinnabagan
3.Anbazhagan
4.A.Malaisamy
5.P.Malaichamy
6.Ilayaraja
7.Thanuskodi
8.Panjaiya
9.Kannan
10.K.Malaisamy
11.Palaniyandi
12.Rajendran
13.Selvaraj
14.Athiyaman
15.Saravanan @ Karuppaiah ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu through,
The Inspector of Police,
M.Chatrapatti Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.43 of 2018)
2.Ponramu ... Respondents
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19071 of 2024
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023, to call for the records pertaining to the F.I.R. in Crime No.43 of
2018, dated 07.04.2018, on the file of the first respondent Police and
quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Vadivel
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
For R2 : Mr.M.Madhavan
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking Section
528 B.N.S.S., 2023, seeking orders to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.43 of
2018, dated 07.04.2018, pending on the file of the first respondent
Police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.04.2018, the second
respondent/de-facto complainant, along with others, jointly organized the
Valandu Karuppasamy Temple festival. The festival is held once every
three or four years, and it commenced on 04.04.2018. On 06.04.2018, the
petitioners stopped a drama performance that was part of the festival.
Following this incident, on 07.04.2018, around 06.00 p.m., Raman,
Lakshmanan, and Nallathambi, who had returned home after finishing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19071 of 2024
their daily work, were attacked by the petitioners with deadly weapons.
The petitioners also pelted stones at others, including the de-facto
complainant. Further, the petitioners entered the house of one Bose,
ransacked household items, damaged roof tiles, and used filthy language
to abuse the women present in the scene of occurrence. They also threw
stones at the house. Hence, the second respondent / de-facto complainant
lodged a 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 Police and
on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.43 of 2018, dated
07.04.2018, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 294(b),
336, 448, 307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu
Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and Section 4 of
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19071 of 2024
amicably among themselves.
5. A Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 05.10.2024, has been filed
before this Court, which has 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.M.Sureshbabu, Head Constable,
M.Chatrapatti Police Station, Madurai District, 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. In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature 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 147, 148, 341, 323, 294(b), 336, 448, 307 and 506(ii) of
I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage
and Loss) Act, 1992 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19071 of 2024
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.
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.43 of 2018, 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.43 of 2018, on the file of the
first respondent Police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise
memo dated 05.10.2024, shall form part and parcel of this order.
06.11.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
smn2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19071 of 2024
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
M.Chatrapatti 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.19071 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19071 of 2024
Dated: 06.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
