Allowed

Periyasamy, v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC6 Mar 2017CRL OP(MD)/1706/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram P.N. Prakash J. quashed the final report in P.R.C.No.4 of 2017 regarding offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, 2015. The matter was quashed based on a joint compromise memo dated 13.02.2017 filed by petitioners and the respondent, deeming it unnecessary to keep proceedings pending an amicable settlement.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in P.R.C.No.4 of 2017 against the petitioners/accused are hereby quashed based on the compromise entered into.

Periyasamy, Vs the Deputy Superintendent of — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.03.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1706 of 2017 1.Periyasamy 2.Palanisamy 3.Kandan @ Kumar 4.Chinnathambi 5.Dharmaraj 6.Murugesan 7.Palaniyandi 8.Chinnakannu 9.Subramani 10.Selvi 11.Ramalingam 12.Ravi @ Natarajan 13.Sekar 14.Palanimalai 15.Saravanan : Petitioners/Accused 1 to 15

¶6

-vs-

¶7

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manapparai, Trichy District. 2.The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Puthanatham Police Station, Trichy District, (Crime No.109 of 2016). 3.Sakthivel : Respondents Prayer : Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in P.R.C.No.4 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, Trichy District and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Joel Paul Antony For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent No.3 : Mr.S.Vinayak

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet laid in P.R.C.No.4 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, Trichy District, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.

¶10

¶11

On the complaint lodged by one Sakthivel, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.109 of 2016 and after completion of investigation, had filed a final report in P.R.C.No.4 of 2017, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 294(b), 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of PPDL Act r/w Section 3(i)(r) (s) and 3(ii)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Original Amendment Act, 2015, challenging which, the accused and the defacto complainant are before this Court for quashing the final report laid against the petitioners on the ground that they have arrived at a compromise.

¶12

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.Rajendran, Inspector of Police, Thuvarankurichi Police Station, appeared in person on behalf of the second respondent. The defacto complainant-Sakthivel is present and the accused are also present and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) through Mr.Rajendran, Inspector of Police, Thuvarankurichi Police Station (Mobile No.9498158270).

¶13

The petitioners and the third respondent have filed a joint compromise memo dated 13.02.2017, in which, it has been stated as follows:

¶14

"3. The petitioners submit that after the occurrence the petitioners and the third respondent entered into compromise since the defacto complainant and petitioners are same villagers.

¶15

6. Both parties have compromised in the matter out of court and the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.4 of 2017 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, Trichy District has to be quashed in view of the same."

¶16

In view of the joint memo of compromise dated 13.02.2017, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings in P.R.C.No.4 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, Trichy District, in respect of the petitioners/accused alone, are hereby quashed.

¶17

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The joint compromise memo dated 13.02.2017 shall form part of this order.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

/TRUE COPY/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

Xerox copies of Joint Compromise memo is enclosed

¶25

To:

¶26

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, Trichy District.

¶27

2.do through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy District.

¶28

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manapparai, Trichy District.

¶29

4.The Inspector of Police, Puthanatham Police Station, Trichy District,

¶30

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

¶31

+1 cc to M/R.A.JOEL PAUL ANTONY, Advocate, SR.NO:12908

¶32

sml

¶33

sva/mms/sv/15.03.2017/3p/7c

¶34

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1706 of 2017 Dated: 06.03.2017

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Periyasamy, v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Periyasamy, v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. India Cements Ltd. Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

C.Chokalingam Vs Junior Engineer /O &M/Town

C.Sivasubramanian Vs Tneb, Rep by Its Chief

Chinnapillai Vs the Inspector of Police

Govindarajan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Balamurugan Vs State Rep by