Criminal Original Petition filed to quash an FIR based on a joint compromise memo between the petitioner and the second respondent. The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR in view of the compromise.
The First Information Report in Crime No.137 of 2018 is quashed in respect of the petitioner/sole accused.
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.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1220 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1220 of 2021
Raja @ Rajapandian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ottapidaram Police Station, Thoothukudi District. Crime No.137 of 2018.
2.Pavunraj ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the First Information Report in Crime No.137 of 2018 pending on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal.
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.137 of 2018 of Ottapidaram Police Station,Thoothukudi District, on the basis of a joint compromise memo filed by the petitioner and the second respondent.
2.The contention of the petitioner is that based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered First Information Report in Crime No.137 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.
3.The further contention of the petitioner is that he wants to compromise the issue between him and the second respondent amicably. A joint memo of compromise is filed, which has been duly signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and also by their respective counsels.
4.The petitioner and the second respondent appeared in person along with their respective counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards before this Court. They were also identified by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and Mr.C.Chandrasekar, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/2
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1220 of 2021
Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Ottapidaram Police Station, Thoothukudi District. Both the parties to compromise were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence the Compromise Memo is recorded.
// True Copy //
RM
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
Xerox copy of Joint Compromise Memo dated 18/01/2021 enclosed.
To
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1220 of 2021 18.02.2021
SE(CO)
SRS (08/03/2021) 2P : 3C
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report registering offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of TN Public Property Act can be quashed in light of a joint compromise memo.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
"Raja @ Rajapandian"
"The Inspector of Police, Ottapidaram Police Station, Thoothukudi District"
"Pavunraj"
"R. Hemalatha"
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
