Madras High Court
Lingeshwaran @ M.Lingesh vs The State Rep on 23 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1237 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.1237 of 2025
1.Lingeshwaran @ M.Lingesh
2.D.Jeyasheelan
3.Gokul @ Gokulakrishnan
4.S.Sudhan @ Sudhankumar
5.K.Sugadeesh ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State rep., by its
The Inspector of Police,
S.S.Kottai Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
Crime No.109 of 2024
2.Athithya ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.109 of 2024 dated
12.12.2024 on the file of S.S.Kottai Police Station, Sivagangai District
and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Subramanian
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1237 of 2025
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate(Crl.Side) \
For R2 : Mr.B.Poovarasan
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First
Information Report in Crime No.109 of 2024 on the file of the first
respondent Police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.12.2024 there was
Kabadi match between two teams. During the match, there was wordy
quarrel between two groups and the petitioners attacked the defacto
complainant. Hence, the complaint.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second
respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police and
on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.109 of 2024,
dated 12.12.2024 for the offences under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 296(b),
115(2) and 351(2) of BNS, against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. A Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 22.01.2025, 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.N.Murugesan, SSI of Police, S.S Kottai
Police Station, Sivagangai 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. It is also submitted that compensation has not been
received.
6. In the instant case, where the parties have compromised the
matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offences
under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) of BNS.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 Crime No.109 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.109 of 2024, on the file of the
first respondent Police, is quashed as against all the accused and the
terms of joint compromise memo dated 22.01.2025, shall form part and
parcel of this order.
23.01.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Rmk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
S.S.Kottai Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Rmk
23.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
