Madras High Court
Muniyasamy Thevar vs The State Represented By Its on 5 February, 2018
Author: P.Rajamanickam
Bench: P.Rajamanickam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.02.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.17965 of 2017 and 17966 of 2017
and 301 of 2018
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17965 of 2017
1.Muniyasamy Thevar
2.Sundaramurugan
3.Ramamoorthy
4.R.R.Ramasamy
5.Saravanan
6.Murugan @ Rajini Murugan
7.Nagarathinam ...Petitioners/Accused 1 to 7
-Vs-
1. The State represented by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Rameswaram Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.,
(In Crime No.48 of 2013) ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Nambuvel ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings in the FIR in Cr.No.48 of 2013
on the file of the Temple Police Station, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram
District, based on the compromise entered between the petitioners and the
defacto complainant.
(Prayer amended vide order of this Court dated 05.02.2018 made in
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.122 of 2018 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17965 of 2017)
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17966 of 2017
1.Muniyasamy Thevar
2.Nagarathinam
3.Muthuramalingam
4.Ramamoorthy
5.Saravanan
6.Murugan S/o.Vellaichamy
7.Murugan S/O.Irulandi
8.Vadivel
9.Jayaraman
10.Thirupathi
11.Murugan @ Rajini Murugan
12.R.R.Ramasamy
13.Thangarasu
14.Sundaramurugan
15.Balamurugan @ Arippu Bala @ Bala ...Petitioners
/Accused 1 to
15
-Vs-
1. The State represented by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Rameswaram Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.,
(In Crime No.47 of 2013) ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Nambuvel ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings in the FIR in Cr.No.47 of 2013
on the file of the Temple Police Station, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram
District, based on the compromise entered between the petitioners and the
defacto complainant.
(Prayer amended vide order of this Court dated 05.02.2018 made in
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.121 of 2018 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17966 of 2017)
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.301 of 2018
1.Muniyasamy Thevar
2.Nagarathinam
3.Muthuramalingam
4.Ramamoorthy
5.Saravanan
6.Murugan
S/o.Vellaichamy
7.Murugan,
S/o.Irulandi
8.Vadivel
9.Jayaraman
10.Thirupathi
11.Murugan @ Rajini Murugan
12.R.R.Ramasamy
13.Patchammal
14.Thangarasu
15.Murugan
S/o.Sappani Thevar
16.Balamurugan @ Arippu Bala @ Bala ...Petitioners
/Accused Nos.1 to 16
-Vs-
1. The State represented by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Rameswaram Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District,
(In Crime No.49 of 2013) ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.T.M.Kannan ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in
C.C.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Ramanathapuram and quash the same.
In all Crl.O.Ps:
!For Petitioners :Mr.R.Senthilkumar
^For R-1 :Mr.O.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu
Government Advocate
For R-2 :Mr.K.Palmurugan
:COMMON ORDER
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.17965 and 17966 of 2017 have been filed to quash the proceedings in the FIRs in Cr.Nos.48 and 47 of 2013 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Temple Police Station, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.301 of 2018 has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, as against the petitioners in all the petitions, based on the compromise entered between the petitioners and the defacto complainant..
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3.The petitioners in Crl.OP(MD) No.17965 of 2017 are accused Nos.1 to 7 in Crime No.48 of 2013, the petitioners in Crl.OP(MD) No.17966 of 2017 are accused Nos.1 to 15 in Crime No.47 of 2013 and similarly, the petitioners in Crl.OP(MD) No.301 of 2018 are the accused Nos.1 to 16 in C.C.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. The second respondent in all the petitions is the defacto complainant.
4.The complaint in Crime No.48 of 2013 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 427 & 506(ii) I.P.C on the file of the first respondent police in Crl.O.P.No.17965 of 2017 and the complaint in Crime No.47 of 2013 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 427 & 506(ii) I.P.C on the file of the first respondent police in Crl.O.P.No.17966 of 2017. Similarly, the complaint in Crime No.49 of 2013 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 323, 427 & 506(ii) I.P.C on the file of the first respondent police in Crl.O.P.No.301 of 2018 and the first respondent has investigated the matter and filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram against all the accused. Thereafter, the said case was taken on file in C.C.No.79 of 2017.
5.It appears that at the advise of the elders and friends, the petitioners and second respondent in all the cases have agreed to compromise the matter, out of Court. Joint Compromise Memos, dated 08.10.2017 and 12.10.2017, are also filed to that effect. As per the Joint Compromise Memos, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent, in all the cases, has given his consent to quash the entire proceedings in FIRs in Cr.Nos.48 and 47 of 2013 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Temple Police Station, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District and to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, as against the petitioners in all the petitions.
6.The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed in the Joint Compromise Memos on their own will and volition. The identities of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identities of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate through the first respondent police.
7.Having regard to the agreement made between the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping these matters pending. As per the Compromise Memos signed by the parties, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent in all the cases have agreed to quash the proceedings in FIRs in Cr.Nos.48 and 47 of 2013 and C.C.No.79 of 2017. Hence the criminal proceedings in FIRs in Cr.Nos.48 and 47 of 2013 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Temple Police Station, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District and the charge sheet in C.C.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, as against the petitioners herein in all the petitions are quashed and the Joint Compromise Memos signed by the parties shall form part of the order.
8. Accordingly, these Criminal Original petitions are allowed.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police, Rameswaram Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.,
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.