Madras High Court
Chinnadurai vs Inspector Of Police on 28 October, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 28.10.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
Crl.OP Nos.29639, 25940 & 19956 of 2008 and
M.P.Nos.1 of 2008 in
Crl.OP Nos.29639, 25940 & 19956 of 2008
1 CHINNADURAI
2 RAJAN
3 VADIVELU
4 NAGARAJ
5 RAJENDRAN
6 MARIMUTHU
7 MOHAMMED IBRAHIM
8 RAMAN
9 CHANDRASEKAR
10 RAMASAMY
..Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.29639/2008
R.V.S.Marimuthu Gounder
..Petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.25940 & 19956/2008
Vs
1 INSPECTOR OF POLICE
DHALI POLICE STATION POLLACHI TALUK
2 R.V.S.RAMALINGAM
.. Respondents
Common Prayer in Crl.O.P.Nos.29639 & 25940 of 2008:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in FRC.10/2008 on the file of the JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-I UDUMALPET. . and to quash the same.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.19956 of 2008:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.91/2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Udumalpet and to quash the same.
For Petitioners Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel
in all Crl.O.Ps : for Mr.R.Loganathan
For R.1
in all Crl.O.Ps :Mr.M.Maharaja
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R.2
in all Crl.O.Ps :Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.29639 of 2008 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.25940 of 2008 are accused in PRC No.10 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.19956 of 2008 is accused in C.C.No.91 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet. The second respondent herein is the defacto complainant in the case. Final reports have been filed by the first respondent for offence under Sections 147, 148, 458, 342, 324, 506(ii) & 395 I.P.C., 411, 414, 342 r/w 109, 324 r/w 109 458 r/w 109, 506(ii) r/w 109, 395 r/w 109 of I.P.c., and 458 r/w 149 I.P.C. Seeking to quash the said cases, the petitioners are before this Court with these Criminal Original Petitions.
2.I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, would submit that now, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties to purchase peace. Therefore, according to him, no purpose will be served in conducting the trial in the above two cases.
4.The learned counsel for the second respondent who is present in Court would submit that the second respondent who is the defacto complainant has got no objection to quash the above two cases.
5.Though, some offences are non compoundable, going by the close relationship between the parties and the fact that the matter has been settled once for all between the parties to purchase peace, I am of the view that this is a fit case to quash the above two cases.
S.NAGAMUTHU,J jbm
6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the case in PRC No.10 of 2008 and the case in C.C.No.91 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet are quashed. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed. 28.10.2014 jbm Index: Yes/No To
1.INSPECTOR OF POLICE DHALI POLICE STATION POLLACHI TALUK
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.OP Nos.29639, 25940 & 19956 of 2008