Madras High Court
Unknown vs The State Rep on 23 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.27 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.27 of 2025
1.Pandi
2.S.Ponnusamy
3.P.Thangapandi
4.Thangaraj @ Thangadurai
5.Natarajan
6.Murugan
7.Balamurugan
8.A.Jeyakumar
9.G.Sundar @ Sunthar
10.Paldurai @ Pauldurai
11.Balu @ Paul Nadar
12.Siva
13.Balaganesh @ Balaganesan
14.Boomiyalantha Perumal
15.P.Netharson @ Natherson
16.R.Thangadurai
17.P.Manikandan
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.27 of 2025
18.T.Sujey @ Sujay
19.Manikandan
20.P.Raja ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State rep., by
The Inspector of Police,
Koodankulam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
Crime No.333 of 2021
2.Duraisamy ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in CC.No.279
of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram,
Tirunelveli District and quash the same in respect of the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Kesavan
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
For R2 : Mr.G.Susikumar
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.27 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the
records in CC.No.279 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District, and quash the same as
illegal, improper and abuse of process of law.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute between
the petitioners and the second respondent regarding the worship and
doing poojas in their family temple called “Uthiramadasamy Kovil” at
Koodankulam. In that regard, on 20.08.2021, quarrel was arisen between
the petitioners and the second respondent and attacked each other. Both
have complained to the first respondent. It is the case and case in
counter.
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.333 of 2021, after investigation, final
report filed, the same taken cognizance in in CC.No.279 of 2023 on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District,
for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(2) of IPC and
Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 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, 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.
The petitioners and the second respondent present before this Court,
identified by Mr.C.Sreepaul, Head Constable, Koodankulam Police
Station, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
amicable settlement between themselves on their own voluntarily
without any compulsion.
6. In the instant case, where the parties have compromised the
matter, the High Court has to power to quash the complaint for the
offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 4
of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
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 CC.No.279 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District, against the petitioners,
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
proceedingsin CC.No.279 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District, is quashed as against the
petitioners and the joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of
this order.
NCC : Yes / No 23.01.2025
Index : Yes / No (1/2)
Rmk
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Koodankulam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Rmk
Order made in
Dated: 23.01.2025
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
