Madras High Court
Rajildan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 February, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2398 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
CRL.OP.(MD).No.2398 of 2025
Rajildan ... Petitioner/Accused No.11
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by The Inspector of Police,
Koodankulam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.357/2020) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Kishok Kumar ...2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to
call for the records pertaining to the Crime No.357/2020 dated
24.11.2020 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ramasamy.S
For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.C.Venkatesh
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2398 of 2024
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the
records pertaining to the Crime No.357 of 2020 dated 24.11.2020 on the
file of the first respondent police and quash the same.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the de-facto
complainant, the second respondent and other victims namely Kishok
Kumar, Dismon, John Kevin, Franko and Willet are present and they
stated that the matter has been compromised by the parties and there is
no objection to quash the case as against this Petitioner/A1. They also
made an endorsement in the Joint Compromise Memo dated 07.02.2025
to that effect. Since, the matter has been compromised between the
parties and the victims has no objection to quash the proceedings. This
Court also in another case quashed the proceedings based on the
compromise for other accused persons through order dated 21.06.2022 in
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10918 of 2022 in the case of Prabhu and Ors. Vs. The
State rep.by the Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli District and Anr.
Though, one of the victim namely Sahaya Arul Vimal is also one of the
victims, is not present today, since he is in abroad.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. This Court has considered the rival submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government
Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent and perused all the
materials available on record. No any injuries sustained by Sahaya Arul
Vimal and he was only treated as out patient. 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.
4. A Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 04.02.2025, has been filed
before this Court, which has 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 the respondent police, as well as by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties. This Court also enquired both the
parties and satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement
between themselves.
5. In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and now
the parties had compromised. When the parties have compromised the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 294 (b), 323, 324, 327, 506 (ii) of IPC.
6. 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.
7. 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. 357 of 2020, pending before the first
respondent Police, even though, the offences involved are not
compoundable in nature.
8. Accordingly, in view of the compromise arrived at between the
parties and also considering the nature of offences inter-alia, this Court
also quashed the FIR as against other accused persons vide order dated
21.06.2022 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10918 of 2022 in the case of Prabhu
and Ors. Vs. The State rep.by the Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
District and Anr. this Court is inclined to accept the compromise.
9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No. 357 of 2020 on the file of the
first respondent police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise
memo dated 04.02.2025 shall form part and parcel of this order.
13.02.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
nst
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Koodankulam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.DHANABAL, J.
nst
Dated: 13.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
