Allowed

Muthuramalinga Pandi v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Feb 2020CRL OP(MD)/1456/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court exercised suo motu jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR involving offences under IPC Sections 323 and 506(i) and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Quashing was warranted despite the offences being non-compoundable, as parties had reached an amicable settlement evidenced by a signed Joint Memo of Compromise and payment of costs to the IAB Trust.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; First Information Report in Crime No.382 of 2019 quashed; terms of Joint Compromise Memo incorporated.

Muthuramalinga Pandi Vs The Inspector of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1456 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.02.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1456 of 2020

¶5

1.Muthuramalinga Pandi

¶6

2.Chellathai .. Petitioners / Accused 1 & 2 Vs.

¶7

1.The Inspector of Police, Thisayanvilai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶8

Crime No.382 of 2019. ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant 2.Senthamizh Selvi ... 2^nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant

¶9

PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.382 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Sasikumar For R1 : Mrs.S.Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl. side) For R2 : Mr.S.Sankar

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.382 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

¶13

2.The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶14

3.A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court, which have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.S.Murugesan, Sub-Inspector of Police. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶15

4.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.382 of 2019.

¶16

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

¶17

1/2

¶18

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1456 of 2020

¶19

5.It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners paid a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as costs to the Credit of the IAB Trust and filed the original cash receipt along with a memo on 18.02.2020. The said submission is placed on record.

¶20

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.382 of 2019, on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

Encl: Xerox Copy of Joint Compromise Memo vsg To

¶25

1.The Inspector of Police, Thisayanvilai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶26

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