Allowed

Prabhu v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Mar 2023CRL OP(MD)/2496/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in Crime No.33 of 2022. The Court found that the dispute was personal and the parties had amicably compromised the matter through a Joint Memo of Compromise.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in Crime No.33 of 2022 are quashed and the terms of the joint compromise memo form part of this order.

Prabhu Vs The Sub Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2496 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2496 of 2023

¶7

Prabhu ... Petitioner/ Accused

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Jeyamangalam Police Station, Theni District. (Crime No.33 of 2022) ... 1^st Respondent/ Complainant

¶10

2.Antony Mathankumar ... 2^nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in the case in Crime No. 33 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal, violation of law.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sridhar For R1 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.M.Muthupandi

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2496 of 2023

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.33 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that when the second respondent/defacto complainant drove his auto near Raja Nursery, Jayamangalam, the petitioner thrown stones in the road towards the auto and when the same was questioned by the second respondent, the petitioner had abused him in filthy language and also attacked him.

¶19

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent and on that basis, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.33 of 2022 dated 21.02.2022 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(2) IPC against the petitioner.

¶20

2/6

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2496 of 2023

¶23

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

¶24

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. The petitioner and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by M/s.B.Veeralakshmi Gandhan, Special Sub Inspector, Jeyamangalam Police Station as well as by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶25

In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and now the parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(2) IPC.

¶26

3/6

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2496 of 2023

¶29

case of

¶30

The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

¶31

case of Gian Singh vs. State of Panjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) reported in (2017)9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.

¶32

In the light of the guidelines issued in the above said Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings in Crime No.33 of 2022 pending before the first respondent police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

¶33

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.33 of 2022 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.

¶34

03.03.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No csm

¶35

4/6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2496 of 2023

¶38

¶39

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Jeyamangalam Police Station, Theni District.

¶40

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

¶41

5/6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2496 of 2023

¶44

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

¶45

csm

¶46

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2496 of 2023

¶47

Dated: 03.03.2023

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

6/6

Prabhu v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarath Kishore Vs The Inspector of Police

Jamal Anish Fathima Vs The Inspector of Police

Rajapandi @ Rajapandy Vs The Inspector of Police

V.S Pandi Vs P.Chellapandiyan

Raja Sikkandar Vs The Inspector of Police

Sikkandar Set Vs The Inspector of Police