Madras High Court
Vignesh vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1929 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1929 of 2025
1.Vignesh
2.Dinesh ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.State of Tamil nadu,
rep., by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Rameswaram Town Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
Crime No.265 of 2023
2.Krishnamoorthy ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.265 of 2023
dated 13.12.2023 registered before the first respondent police and quash
the same as far as these petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Bhuvana Hariharanathan
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate(Crl.Side) \
For R2 : Mr.M.Sailesh
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1929 of 2025
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First
Information Report in Crime No.232 of 2019 on the file of the first
respondent Police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons way laid
the defacto complainant, abused with filthy language and also beaten.
Hence this present case. It is also submitted that this is a case and case in
counter.
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.265 of 2023,
dated 13.12.2023 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323,
506(2) and 379 of IPC against the petitioners.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. A Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 21.01.2025, 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.D.Karthikraja, Rameshwaram Town
Police Station, 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.
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 341, 294(b), 323, 506(2) and 379 of IPC.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.265 of 2023, 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.265 of 2023, on the file of the
first respondent Police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise
memo dated 21.01.2025, shall form part and parcel of this order.
30.01.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Rmk
To
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Rameswaram Town Police Station,
Ramanathapuram 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
30.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
