Madras High Court
Packiyalakshmi @ Backialalakshmi vs The State Represented By Its on 4 September, 2024
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13698 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13698 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8487 of 2024
1.Packiyalakshmi @ Backialalakshmi
2.Nevilipandi
3.Suresh @ Sureshkumar
4.Aviliappan
5.Chandrasekar
6.Bharathi @ Bharathiraja
7.Karuppaiah @ Karupaiya
8.Ayyavu @ Aiyavu
9.Minor Jeeva @ Jeevaganesh
represented by his father Paramasivam
10.Jegadeesh @ Jegadeeshkumar
11.Minor Gogul @ Raguram
represented by his mother Mathimalar ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State Represented by its
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul Rural,
Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Shanarpatti Police Station,
Dindigul District.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13698 of 2024
3.Ponmari ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S.,
to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.226 of 2024 dated
25.05.2024 on the file of the Shanarpatti Police Station, Dindigul District
and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman
For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R3 : Mr.M.Gandhirajan
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section
528 B.N.S.S., seeking orders to quash the FIR in Crime No.226 of 2024
dated 25.05.2024 pending on the file of the second respondent.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to some land dispute, the
petitioners abused the third respondent in filthy language using the
community name and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the
third respondent lodged a complaint.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13698 of 2024
counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the third
respondent has lodged a complaint before the second respondent and on
that basis, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.226 of 2024 dated
25.05.2024 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b) and 506(2)
IPC, Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002
and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s), 3(2)(va) and 3(l)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 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
amicably among themselves.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has filed an
affidavit on behalf of the third respondent/defacto complainant stating
that the third respondent has not received the compensation amount till
date.
6. A Joint Memo of Compromise dated 09.08.2024 has been filed
before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13698 of 2024
respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the
third respondent were also present in person before this Court and they
were identified by Mr.K.Murugan, Special Sub Inspector, Shanarpatti
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, 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, 294(b) and 506(2) IPC, Section 4 of TN
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Sections 3(l)(r),
3(l)(s), 3(2)(va) and 3(l)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989.
8. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13698 of 2024
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.226 of 2024 pending before the second
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.226 of 2024 on the file of
the second respondent police, is quashed and the terms of joint
compromise memo dated 09.08.2024 shall form part and parcel of this
order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
csm
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul Rural,
Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Shanarpatti Police Station,
Dindigul 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.13698 of 2024
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13698 of 2024
and
Dated: 04.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
