This order allowed a Criminal Original Petition to quash FIR proceedings under Section 482 CrPC following a joint compromise memo. The court quashed the FIR citing Supreme Court guidelines allowing quashing in non-compoundable cases upon amicable settlement.
FIR in Crime No.240 of 2019 quashed; Joint Compromise Memo made part of order; costs fixed.
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.742 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.04.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.742 of 2022 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.545 of 2022
...Petitioner Accused No.6 Vs.
Athangarayan
... Respondent/ Complainant
2.Karuppanan @ Rajagam ...Respondents/ Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Crime No.240 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor No.2 : Mr.M.Vijay Anand
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.240 of 2019 , on the file of the first respondent police.
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.
3. A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel.
4 .Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending before the respondent police. 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.240 of 2019 pending on the file of the first respondent police. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/2
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.742 of 2022
5.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.240 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. The petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs, to the to the credit of Government of Tamil Nadu, CMPRF in IOB, Secretariat Branch, Chennai-9 (Account No.11720 10000 00070, IFSC Code: IOBA0001172) on or before 19.05.2022 and produce the receipt before the respondent police, failing which the order shall stand dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
Assistant Registrar (CO)
/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
aav
Enclosed herewith Copy of the Joint Compromise Memo
To
3.The Joint Secretary to Government, CMPRF (Finance Department), Secretariat Branch, Chennai-9.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.742 of 2022 29.04.2022
RD(06.05.2022) 2P 4C
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to quash proceedings in Crime No.240 of 2019 where parties have compromised despite non-compoundable offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of GujrathExplained¶14
2017 9 SCC 641 - (Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PETITIONER Accused No.6
ATHANGARAYAN
INSPECTOR OF POLICE MELUR
KARUPPANAN
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
