The Madurai Bench allowed a criminal original petition to quash proceedings after a joint compromise memo was signed in court. The court noted the offence was compoundable and parties were present.
The entire proceedings in Crime No.98 of 2017 against the petitioners were quashed upon recording of the joint compromise memo.
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: 03.07.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL.O.P.(MD).No.8117 of 2017
1.Seenivasan
2.Selvakumar
: Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2
Vs.
1.The State, represented by its The Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.98 of 2017)
:Ist Respondent/Complainant
2.Paramasivam : 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying this Court to call for the records in crime No.98 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent Police and to quash the same.
For Petitioners : M/s.R.J.Karthick For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan,
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondent No.2 : M/s.S.Mathivanan
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying this Court to call for the records in crime No.98 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent Police and to quash the same.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent/Police and perused the materials placed before the Court including the Joint Compromise memo signed by both the parties.
3.It is seen from the records that the offences in which the criminal case was registered are compoundable. The parties have entered into a compromise and the identity of persons who have entered into compromise are not in dispute and they are present in Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent filed a memo of compromise stating that since the matter has been compromised, the second respondent agreed to withdraw the above said case in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Crime No.98 of 2017, pending on the file of the first respondent/Police.
2
4.Considering the nature of allegation and also considering the memo of compromise, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. Therefore, recording the joint compromise memo, the entire proceedings in Crime No.98 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent/Police in respect of the petitioners alone, is, hereby, quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed accordingly. The joint compromise memo shall form part of the order of this Court. Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl side) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S.) To Joint Compromise memo xerox copies are enclosed 1.The Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai . +1cc to M/S.R.J.KARTHICK, Advocate SR.No.63215 vsn MAS/MR-KKR/SAR2:12.07.2017:2P-4C
Order made in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.8117 of 2017 Dated:- 03.07.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed based on a recorded joint compromise memo.
Seenivasan
Selvakumar
The State
Paramasivam
S.S.SUNDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
