This Court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR. The Court found that a valid compromise was reached between the petitioners and the complainant. The FIR was quashed, and petitioners were directed to pay Rs. 500 each towards tree removal.
FIR quashed; Petitioners directed to pay Rs. 500 each to buyout Karuvelam trees.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.04.2017
CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3477 of 2017 1.Gowshi 2.Gautham 3.Sathiskumar 4.Paul Pandi 5.Pothavar 6.Ranjithkumar 7.Pandi 8.Illayaraja 9.Malathi 10.Pandiyammal 11.Gandhimathi12.Ranjini : Petitioners -vs1.State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.244 of 2014) 2. Deivendiran S/o Thirumalai, Mangulam, Madurai East(Taluk), Madurai District. : Respondents
Prayer : Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the entire records in Crime No.244 of 2014 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr. P.Ganesan For Respondent No.1 : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent No.2 :
O R D E R
On the complaint lodged by one Deivendiran / 2nd respondent, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.244 of 2014 for offences under Sections 147,148,294(b),323,324&506(ii) of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, challenging which, the accused and the defacto complainant are before this Court for
2
quashing the FIR against the petitioners on the ground that they have arrived at a compromise.
"2.During pendency of the investigation, the 2nd respondent has realized that he has instituted the present case against the petitioners out of frustration. Now he realized his mistake. Hence the 2nd respondent/De-facto Complainant do not want to precede the case further. The petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent are relative, hence, at the intervention of the family elders they have sat together and thought of purchase a peace. Therefore, they have entered into a compromise and mutually agreed to solve the problem amicably at the instance of the family elders. The 2nd respondent/De-facto Complainant also has no objection in allowing the present quash petition. Therefore in view of the amicable settlement between the parties the 2nd respondent express his willing to say no objection before this Hon'ble Court through this joint compromise memo for the purpose of quashing the entire proceedings as mentioned above.”
5.At the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners themselves voluntarily came forward to contribute some amount for the purpose of removal of Karuvelam Trees.
6.Accepting the submission, the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each (totally Rs.6000/- Rupees Six Thousand only), to the credit of Indian Bank https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Savings Account No.6514082295, operated by the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, for
3
the purpose of removal of Karuvelam Trees, within a period of two weeks from today. After making payment, a copy of the challan shall be furnished to the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To:
Joint compromise memo xerox copy is enclosed
1.The Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.
3.The Registrar (Administration) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai
+1 CC TO MR.P.GANESAN,ADVOCATE,SR NO.50348
GK/RR
MAS.MR.SAR3:28.04.2017:3P-5C
Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3477 of 2017 Dated: 03.04.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR u/s 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 & 506(ii) IPC should be quashed in view of the filed compromise memo.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gowshi, Gautham, Sathiskumar, Paul Pandi, Pothavar, Ranjithkumar, Pandi, Illayaraja, Malathi, Pandiyammal, Gandhimathi, Ranjini
State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station
Deivendiran
P.N. Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
