Madras High Court
S.Velusamy vs The Inspector Of Police on 23 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1357 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.1357 of 2025
and Crl.M.P(MD).No.921 of 2025
1.S.Velusamy
Balasubramanian(died)
2.Vanaja
3.Ashokan
4.Vinothkumar
5.P.Kumudaveni
6.A.Kavitha ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police
Jeeyapuram Police Station,
Trichy District.
Crime No.69 of 2022
2.Surendiran ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.
69 of 2022 dated 06.03.2022 registered on the file of the first respondent
police under Section 142, 149, 380, 34, 395 and 402 of IPC subsequently
@ to Section 34, 406, 420 and 465 of IPC as per the alteration report
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1357 of 2025
dated 08.07.2022 and quash the same as per-se illegal in respect of this
petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Boominathan
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate(Crl.Side) \
For R2 : Mr.T.J.Ebenezer Charles
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First
Information Report in Crime No.69 of 2022 on the file of the first
respondent Police.
2. Due to family dispute, the defacto complainant lodged a
complaint against the petitioners and case in Crime No.69 of 2022 was
assigned on 06.03.2022 for the offence under Sections 142, 149, 380, 34,
395 and 402 of IPC and thereafter, the same was altered into Sections 34,
406, 420 and 465 of IPC on 08.07.2022. It is the case and case in
counter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. 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 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 the respondent police, 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.
5. 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 34, 406, 420 and 465 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(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.69 of 2022, pending before the first
respondent Police, even though, the offences involved are not
compoundable in nature.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.69 of 2022, on the file of the
first respondent Police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise
memo dated 22.01.2025, shall form part and parcel of this order.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23.01.2025
(2/2)
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Rmk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Thillai Nagar Police Station
Trichy 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
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
