Madras High Court
Srithar vs State Rep By on 9 September, 2024
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13407 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13407 of 2024
Srithar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Eruvadi Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
Crime No.277 of 2024.
2.Esakkiappan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
to call for the records relating to the Crime No.277 of 2024 on the file of
the first respondent police, dated 08.07.2024 and quash the same as
illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jeya Mohan
For R1 : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.K.Vinohavan
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13407 of 2024
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section
528 B.N.S.S., seeking orders to quash the FIR in Crime No.277 of 2024
dated 08.07.2024 pending on the file of the first respondent.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there existed money dispute
between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, due to which, the
petitioner abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and also
threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.
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.277 of 2024 dated
08.07.2024 for the offences under Section 296(b) BNS and Section 4 of
Exorbitant Interest Act.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13407 of 2024
5. A Joint Memo of Compromise dated 27.08.2024 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.Agustin, HC 2710, Eruvadi Police
Station, Tirunelveli 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 Section 296(b) BNS and Section 4 of Extradition Act 1962.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13407 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 Crime No.277 of 2024 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.277 of 2024 on the file of the
first respondent police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise
memo dated 27.08.2024 shall form part and parcel of this order.
09.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
das
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13407 of 2024
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Eruvadi Police Station,
Tirunelveli 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.13407 of 2024
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
das
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13407 of 2024
Dated: 09.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
