Madras High Court
Mohanram vs The State Rep. By on 26 June, 2023
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1007 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1007 of 2023
Mohanram ... Petitioner/Accused No.2
Vs.
1.The State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Pathamadai Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.121 of 2022) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Ashokkumar ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the records pertaining to the FIR
in Crime No.121 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police,
Pathamadai Police Station, Tirunelveli District and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.S. Sathya Chidambaram
For R1 : Mr.S.Manikandan
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
For R2 : Mr.N.Saravanan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1007 of 2023
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.121 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent police.
2.The contention of the petitioner is that based on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No.121 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC, against the petitioner.
3.The further contention of the petitioner is that they compromised the issue with the 2nd respondent amicably. A joint memo of compromise was filed, which has been duly signed by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and also by their respective counsels.
4. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court along with their counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards. Since the victim was below the age of 18 years at the time of occurrence, his father also present before this Court. They were also identified by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) and the Investigation Officer. Both the parties were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence, the Compromise Memo is recorded. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1007 of 2023
5.Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also in view of the joint compromise memo, dated 20.12.2022, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending and inclined to quash all further proceedings in Crime No.121 of 2022 pending on the file of the 1st respondent police in respect of this petitioner.
6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.121 of 2022, pending on the file of the 1st respondent police is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner. The compromise memo is recorded and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order.
26.06.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No trp To
1. The Inspector of Police, Pathamadai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1007 of 2023 G.ILANGOVAN. J.
trp Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1007 of 2023 26.06.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4