Allowed

Sikkandar Set v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Mar 2023CRL OP(MD)/2508/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR registered for offences involving abuse, assault, and harassment. The Single Judge allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings after finding that the parties had compromised the dispute and signed a Joint Memo of Compromise. Thus, keeping the proceedings pending served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.95 of 2022 are quashed and the terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise form part of this order.

Sikkandar Set Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2508 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.2508 of 2023

¶7

Sikkandar ... Petitioner/ Sole Accused

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.95 of 2022) ... 1^st Respondent/ Complainant 2.Syed Ali Fathima ... 2^nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.95 of 2022 dated 05.05.2022 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu For R1 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.B.Muneeswaran

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2508 of 2023

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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.95 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that there existed previous dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant and that on 05.05.2022, the petitioner had abused the second respondent in filthy language and threatened her and also attacked the second respondent's husband.

¶18

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.95 of 2022 dated 05.05.2022 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 355 and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 against the petitioner.

¶19

2/6

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2508 of 2023

¶22

The case is still under the investigation. By passage of time, the

¶23

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 Mr.Sivakumar, Sub Inspector, Thiruchuli 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, 341, 355 and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

¶26

3/6

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2508 of 2023

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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.95 of 2022 pending before the first respondent police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

¶32

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.95 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.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

4/6

¶36

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2508 of 2023

¶37

¶38

The Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

¶39

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

¶40

5/6

¶41

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

¶42

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2508 of 2023

¶43

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

¶44

csm

¶45

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2508 of 2023

¶46

Dated: 03.03.2023

¶47

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

¶48

6/6

Sikkandar Set v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikkandar Set v. The 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

Prabhu Vs The Sub Inspector of Police