Allowed

Thamotharan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Feb 2023CRL OP(MD)/697/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a criminal petition to quash proceedings in C.C.No.704 of 2017. The court held that having compromised their personal dispute, the parties did not require further judicial confirmation, and thus ordered the quashing of the non-compoundable offences under IPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.704 of 2017 quashed; joint compromise memo adopted.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.697 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.697 of 2023

¶7

1.Thamotharan

¶8

2.Nagarajan

¶9

3.Siva @ Sivakumar

¶10

4.Thiruganesh

¶11

5.Rajendran

¶12

6.Vikky @ Vignesh rajapandian

¶13

7.Vasanth

¶14

8.Sankar @ Sankar Ganesh

¶15

9.Karthick

¶16

10.Suthakar ... Petitioners

¶17

Vs.

¶18

1.The Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai District.

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.697 of 2023

¶22

2.Vikki @ Vigneshrajan ... Respondents

¶23

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the final report in C.C.No.704 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai and quash the same as illegal.

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr.K.V.Rajadurai For R1 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.S.Arjun

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records relating to the final report in C.C.No.704 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai and quash the same as illegal.

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that there existed previous enmity

¶28

between the parties, due to which, the petitioners attacked the second respondent/defacto complainant with wooden log and stones.

¶29

2/6

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.697 of 2023

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit

¶33

that the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent and on that basis, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.231 of 2013 against nine persons/petitioners 1 to 9 and after investigation and filing of the final report, the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.704 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) IPC against the petitioners.

¶34

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

¶35

A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsels. The petitioners and the second respondent are present before this Court and and they were identified by Mr.M.Vijaya Kumaran, Head Constable 565, H1 Samayanallur Police Station as well as by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. This

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.697 of 2023

¶39

Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶40

In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and the parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has to power to quash the complaint for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) IPC.

¶41

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

¶42

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 C.C.No.704 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

¶43

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.704 of 2017, on the file of the Judicial 4/6

¶44

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

¶45

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.697 of 2023

¶46

Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai, is quashed and the joint compromise

¶47

memo shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶48

10.02.2023

¶49

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶50

csm

¶51

¶52

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai.

¶53

2.The Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai District.

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

5/6

¶57

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.697 of 2023

¶58

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

¶59

csm

¶60

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.697 of 2023

¶61

Dated: 10.02.2023

¶62

6/6

¶63

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

Thamotharan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thamotharan 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

Pazha Kathiresan Chettiyar Vs The Superintendent of Police

Vignesh Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Edwin Joswa Vs S.Kannan

S.R.Madhusudhanan Vs K.Pounraj

Selvendran Vs The Inspector of Police

Vikki @ Vigneshrajan Vs The Inspector of Police