Madras High Court
Veyilraja vs The State Rep. By on 12 March, 2024
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3363 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.03.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
CRL.O.P (MD) No.3363 of 2024
1. Veyilraja
2.Vijayaragul ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2
Vs.
1. The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Pathamadai Police Station,
Tirunelveli.
(Crime No.49 of 2022) 1st Respondent / Complainant
2.Packeerl Banu 2nd respondent / Defacto complainant
3. Muthubeevi 3rd respondent / mother of the deceased
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records in C.C.No.721 of 2022 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi and quash the same as against
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3363 of 2024
the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Maharaja
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.M.Veerenthiran
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For respondents 2 and 3 : Mr. M.Natarajan
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.721 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi and quash the same as against the petitioners.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.721 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi for the offences under Sections 279, 304(A) and 337 IPC. During the pendency of the case, the Accused and the De facto complainants had arrived at a compromise.
3. The Respondents 2 and 3 / De facto complainant had engaged a Counsel and the Counsel had filed vakalat in this case.
2/5https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3363 of 2024
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), on instructions of the first Respondent Police, submits that amicable settlement arrived between the Parties are bonafide. The status report also filed by the Investigating Officer along with the statements of the Defacto complainant as well as the Accused and their identity proofs. The same is recorded.
5. In the light of the status report of the Inspector of Police, Pathamadai Police Station, Tirunelveli and the Joint Compromise Memo filed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for the Defacto complainant, the case in C.C.No. 721 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, is hereby quashed. The Joint Compromise Memo shall part and parcel of the order.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Internet :Yes./No 12.03.2024
Index :Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
trp
3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3363 of 2024
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Pathamadai Police Station,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3363 of 2024 SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
trp CRL.O.P (MD) No.3363 of 2024 12.03.2024 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis