Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Tenkasi Haniba vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 March, 2018

Author: P.Rajamanickam

Bench: P.Rajamanickam

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 20.03.2018  

CORAM   

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM             
                                                                        
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4091 of 2018 


1.Tenkasi Haniba 
2.Sulthan Syed Ibrahim 
3.Yasher Arabath 
4.Vellai Shiek
5.Jiyavudeen
6.Ashik
7.Jabar
8.Sheik
9.Rahim 
10.Rasheeth 
11.Thamin                                     ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 11

-Vs-

1.The Inspector of Police,
   Thadikumpu Police Station,
   Dindugul District.
   (Crime No.18/2018)                    ... Respondent No.1/Complainant

2.Velusamy                 ... Respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant

Prayer:  Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to quash the FIR in Crime No.18/2018 pending on the file
of the Respondent No.1 police station.

!For Petitioner       : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah

For 1stRespondent  : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu    
                                            Government Advocate (Crl.side)

                For 2nd Respondent : Mr.M.K.Aushikan  
                        

:ORDER  

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the case in Crime No.18 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3.The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.18 of 2018. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, against the petitioners, the case was registered in Crime No.18 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police, for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) I.P.C and 25(1-A) Arms Act.

4.It appears that on the advice of friends and elders, the parties have entered into compromise and a Joint Compromise Memo, signed by both parties, in the presence of their respective counsel, is also filed. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent has agreed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.18 of 2018.

5.The parties have appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed the Joint Compromise Memo on their own free 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 (Crl.side) through the first respondent police.

6.Having regard to the specific terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence the First Information Report in Crime No.18 of 2018, on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed in toto. The Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

7.Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed.

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Thadikumpu Police Station, Dindugul District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

.