Madras High Court
Imran Khan @ Mohammed Jafran vs The Inspector Of Police on 11 November, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19073 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19073 of 2024
1.Imran Khan @ Mohammed Jafran
2.Malungu @ Malungu Ibrahmi Sha
3.Jabar @ Sahubar Sathick ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Thondi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.200 of 2021)
2.Sudhakar ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023, to call for the records in S.C.No.241 of 2023, on the file of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram, and quash the same
as illegal, improper and abuse of process of law.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Murugan
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
For R2 : Mr.S.Santosha Uthaman
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19073 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section
528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking orders to call
for the records in S.C.No.241 of 2023, on the file of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram, and quash the same as illegal,
improper and abuse of process of law.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.08.2021, the second
respondent's two-wheeler (TN-65-S-6292) caused scratches on the auto
(TN-65-AA-0955). The first petitioner verbally abused and chased him,
threatening to kill him. The second petitioner, driving the auto, collided
with the two-wheeler, causing the second respondent to fall. The third
petitioner assaulted him with a wooden log, inflicting a bleeding head
injury. The first petitioner also attacked the second respondent's head.
The persons standing nearby intervened and separated them during the
quarrel. Thereafter, one Sachidhanandham took the second respondent
to Government Hospital, Thiruvadanai. On receiving intimation from the
hospital, the first respondent obtained a statement from the second
respondent and registered a case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19073 of 2024
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent
and F.I.R. registered in Crime No.200 of 2021, after investigation, final
report filed, the same taken cognizance in S.C.No.241 of 2023, on the
file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram, for the
offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 307 I.P.C. against the
petitioners. He further submitted that the doctor had opined that the
injury was simple in nature.
4. The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have
decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably
among themselves, for the reason, sudden wordy quarrel lead to
exchange of blows, it was not a premeditated attack and both parties
contributed to the happenings. Now, both realized their mistakes,
reconciled and second respondent agreeing to withdraw the complaint,
not willing to pursue the case.
5. A Joint Memo of Compromise filed before this Court signed by
the petitioners and the second respondent and their respective counsels.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19073 of 2024
The petitioners and the second respondent present before this Court,
identified by Mr.V.Soundara Pandian, Thondi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District, as well as by the learned counsels appearing
for the parties. This Court enquired both the parties, satisfied that the
parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves on their
own voluntarily without any compulsion.
6. In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature arise out
of road accident, causing damage to the Auto and two-wheeler, a sudden
quarrel leading to exchange of blows and Doctor opined, injury not life
threatening and the parties had compromised. Where the parties have
compromised the matter, the High Court has to power to quash the
complaint for the offence under Sections 294(b), 324 and 307 I.P.C.
7. The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012)
10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat)
reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19073 of 2024
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 S.C.No.241 of 2023 as against the petitioners pending
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram, even
though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in S.C.No.241 of 2023, on the file of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram, is quashed as against the petitioners
and the joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
NCC : Yes / No 11.11.2024
Index : Yes / No
smn2
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thondi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19073 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19073 of 2024
Dated: 11.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
