Madras High Court
M.Chandrasekar vs The State on 17 December, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3809 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.12.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3809 of 2024
1.M.Chandrasekar
2.P.Moorthi
3.S.Ramesh Kanna ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State, Rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
Vadamadurai Police Station,
Dindigul District.
(Crime No.319 of 2013)
2.S.Jothipaasu
3.R.K.Manoj Kumar ... Respondents
[R3 is impleaded vide order dated 27.11.2024,
made in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.12749 of 2024]
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records pursuant to the proceedings in C.C.No.111
of 2014, on the file of the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate Court, Vedasandur and quash the same against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Iniyavan
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3809 of 2024
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
For R3 : Mr.G.Sarathkumar
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking orders to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.111 of 2014, on the file of the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent, the de-facto complainant, was working as a watchman at Sri Vari Textiles. On 01.10.2013, at around 07:30 a.m., while conducting his regular check, the petitioners stole an iron bar weighing 2 kilograms, valued at approximately Rs.1,500/-. The de-facto complainant later recovered the stolen item and lodged a complaint against the petitioners. Based on the complaint, the first respondent Police registered an F.I.R. in Crime No. 319 of 2013 under Section 381 of the I.P.C. After completing the investigation, the Police filed a final report, which was taken cognizance of in C.C.No.111 of 2014 by the learned Additional District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur.
2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3809 of 2024
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent, the de-facto complainant, passed away on 04.07.2016. Therefore, one R.K.Manoj Kumar, who is now working as the Supervisor (Maintenance) at Sri Vari Textiles, Vadamadurai, Dindigul District, has been impleaded as the third respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent and on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.319 of 2013 and after investigation and filing of the final report, the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No. 111 of 2014, on the file of the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, for the offence under Section 381 of the I.P.C. 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.
5. A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the third respondent and 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3809 of 2024 also by their respective counsels. The petitioners and the third respondent are present before this Court and and they were identified by Mr.M.Kalimuthu, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul 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.
6. In the instant case, the parties have now compromised the issue. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has to power to quash the complaint for the offence under Section 381 of the I.P.C.
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 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3809 of 2024 the proceedings in C.C.No.111 of 2014 as against the petitioners pending before the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.111 of 2014, on the file of the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur, is quashed as against the petitioners and the joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
17.12.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
smn2
To
1.The Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Dhadikombu Police Station, Dindigul District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3809 of 2024 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2 Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3809 of 2024 Dated: 17.12.2024 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis