Madras High Court
Alexpandian vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.156 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.156 of 2025
1.Alexpandian
2.Selvakumar
3.Veluchamy ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its
Inspector of Police,
Vadamadurai Police Station,
Dindigul.
(Crime No.522 of 2018)
2.Saravanan ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.53 of
2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur and quash
the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 6
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.156 of 2025
For R2 : Mr.M.Gandhi Rajan
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking to quash C.C.No.53 of 2019
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.10.2018, at about 09:00
p.m., when the second respondent (de facto complainant) and one Natchan
were proceeding from Kurumbapatti to Senkurichi, a car bearing
registration No.TN-57-J-5154, in which the petitioners were traveling,
came towards them in a reckless manner, resulting in the second
respondent (de-facto complainant) and Natchan attempting to avoid a
collision, but both fell down. Upon getting up, when the second
respondent (de facto complainant) and Natchan questioned the petitioners
regarding the incident, the petitioners allegedly assaulted them by hitting
and kicking them, and used filthy language and threatened them with dire
consequences. Hence, the second respondent (de facto complainant)
lodged a complaint.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first
respondent and on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.
522 of 2018 and after investigation and filing of the final report, the same
was taken cognizance in C.C.No.53 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Vedasandur, for the offences punishable under Sections
294(b), 323, and 506 (2) of I.P.C. against the petitioners.
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.
5. A Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 01.01.2025, 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.Madhavan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police,
Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District, as well as by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties. This Court also enquired both the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable
settlement between themselves.
6. In the instant case, now the parties had compromised. Where the
parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has power to quash
the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, and
506 (2) of 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.
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 C.C.No.53 of 2019 as against the petitioners pending
before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur, even though, the
offences involved are not compoundable in nature.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in C.C.No.53 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Vedasandur, is quashed as against the petitioners and the Joint
Compromise Memo, dated 01.01.2025, shall form part and parcel of this
order.
07.01.2025
(1/2)
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
JEN
To:
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Vedasandur, Dindigul District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Vadamadurai Police Station,
Dindigul.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
JEN
07.01.2025
(1/2)
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
