Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging offences under IPC. The Court recorded a joint compromise memo and quashed the FIR against the petitioners.
The FIR in Crime No.164 of 2022 pending on the file of the 1st respondent police is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners.
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.332 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:09 .06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.332 of 2023
1.Sakthivel
Vs.
2.Murugesan : R2/De-facto Complainant 3.Veerappan : R3/Victim
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in FIR in Crime No.164 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioners and pass such other or further orders.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Rameshkumar For R1 : Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Criminal side)
For R2 and R3 : Mr.P.Balasubramanian
1/5
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.332 of 2023
O RDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.164 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent police.
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.164 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 427, 432, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC as against the petitioners.
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 respondents 2 and 3 and also by their respective counsels.
4.The petitioners and the 3rd respondent appeared before this Court along with their counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards. The 2nd respondent appeared through VC. They were also identified by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and the Investigation Officer. Both the parties were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence, the Compromise Memo is recorded.
2/5
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.332 of 2023
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, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose
will be served by keeping the matter pending and inclined to quash FIR in Crime No.164 of 2022 pending on the file of the 1st respondent police, in respect of the petitioners.
6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
the FIR in Crime No.164 of 2022 pending on the file of the 1st respondent, is hereby quashed. The compromise memo is recorded and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order.
09.06.2023
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No er
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.332 of 2023
To
4/5
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.332 of 2023
G.ILANGOVAN. J.
er
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.332 of 2023
09.06.2023
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered against the petitioners can be quashed based on a recorded compromise.
Whether no useful purpose is served by keeping the matter pending given the compromise memo.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sakthivel
Ramu @ Ramkumar
Seeni @ Seenivasan
Guna @ Gunasekaran
State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Nagudi Police Station, Pudukkottai District
Murugesan
G.ILANGOVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
