In a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court quashed the sessions case proceedings against the petitioners based on a recorded joint compromise memo. A subsequent order corrected a clerical error regarding the lower court's designation.
Quashing of all further proceedings in S.C.No.75 of 2018 in respect of the petitioners alone.
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.1680 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1680 of 2023
1.Viji
2.Sinkarajan
... Petitioner / Accused
Vs.
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for records pertaining to the impugned Sessions Case in S.C.No.75 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District and to quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr. C. Kishore For R1 : Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.V. Xavier Raj
1/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1680 of 2023
O RDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for records pertaining to the impugned Sessions Case in S.C.No.75 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District and to quash the same.
2.The contention of the petitioners is that based on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No.121 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and 307 IPC, against the petitioners. It appears that there is no grievous injuries sustained by the defacto complainant.
3.The further contention of the petitioners is that they compromised the issue with the 2nd respondent amicably. A joint memo of compromise was filed, which has been duly signed by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent and also by their respective counsels.
4.The petitioners and the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court along with their counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards. They were also identified by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1680 of 2023
Investigation Officer. Both the parties were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence, the Compromise Memo is recorded.
5.Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners and also in view of the joint compromise memo, dated 31.01.2023, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending and inclined to quash all further proceedings in S.C.No.75 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District in respect of the petitioners.
6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the entire proceedings in S.C.No.75 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners alone. The compromise memo is recorded and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order.
23.06.2023
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No trp
3/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1680 of 2023
To
4/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1680 of 2023
G.ILANGOVAN. J.
trp
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1680 of 2023
23.06.2023
Crl.OP(MD)No.1680 of 2023
5/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1680 of 2023
G. ILANGOVAN J:
The matter is listed today under the caption “for being mentioned”, at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District ” .
3.In view of the same, the Registry is directed to make necessary corrections wherever it appears in the order and issue a fresh copy of the order to the parties concerned.
6/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1680 of 2023
14.07.2023
PNM
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings regarding grievous hurt and attempt to murder offences deserve quashal due to a joint compromise memo signed after registration of FIR.
Whether the respondent should be directed to correct the court order regarding the specific court where the Sessions Case was filed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Viji
Sinkarajan
The State
Prabhu
G. ILANGOVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
