Madras High Court
Anbarasan vs State Rep.By on 21 August, 2017
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.08.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10950 of 2017
1.Anbarasan
2.Tamilarasan
3.Arun @ Arumozhithevar
4.Prabhu @ Prabhakaran
5.Sethupathy
6.Lingam @ Sundara Lingam
7.Mayandi
8.Vignesh @ Vinoth
9.Rajesh
10.Muthuraman
11.Arumugam
12.Vignesh
13.Jegadees @ Jegadeeswaran
14.Raja @ Rajkumar
15.Mahalingam ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 5
-Vs-
1. State rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.44 of 2016) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Kottai Pandiyarajan ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto-
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to quash the case in Crime No.44 of 2016 on the file of
the first respondent police station, by accepting the joint compromise memo
dated 26.06.2017.
!For Petitioners : Mr.R. Gowri Shankar
^For R-1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan,
Government Advocate(Crl.side).
For R-2 : Mr.K.Radhakrishnan
:ORDER
This Criminal Original petition is filed to quash the case in Crime No.44 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police station, by accepting the joint compromise memo dated 26.06.2017.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3. On the basis of a complaint given by the second respondent, a case was registered in Crime No.44 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 147,148,294(b), 323, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC against the petitioners.
4. The petitioners in this petition and also the connected Criminal Original Petitions viz., Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.10949 and 10951 to 10953 of 2017 are the parties belong to the same village and several incidents of crime reported due to some mis-understanding, wordy quarrel and petty clash, and cases were registered involving the petitioner in all the Criminal Original Petitions.
5. It appears that all the parties have settled their dispute amicably, on the advise of the elders and well wishers. Both the petitioners and the de facto complainant have entered into a compromise and a joint compromise memo signed by the respective parties in the presence of the counsels have been produced before this Court. As per the joint compromise memo dated 26.06.2017, the second respondent viz., de facto complainant has no objection for quashing the criminal proceedings in Crime No.44 of 2016 pending on the file of the first respondent.
6. The parties except A2 and A4 are present before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that the Joint Compromise Memo signed by them was on their own will and volition. The identity of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identity of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) through the first respondent police.
7. In view of the Compromise Memo signed by the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence, the Criminal Original petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.44 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent is quashed in toto, on the basis of the compromise memo signed by the parties concerned before this Court and the Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.
To The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station, Madurai District.
.