Allowed

Sivakumar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Feb 2023CRL OP(MD)/846/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought quashing of an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Based on a joint compromise memo signed by parties in a family dispute, the Court held that keeping proceedings pending serves no useful purpose and ordered the quashing of the case.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.304 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police are quashed subject to terms of the compromise memo.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.846 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.846 of 2023

¶7

Sivakumar,

¶8

Prasanth,

¶9

: Petitioners

¶10

¶11

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District. (Crime No.30304 of 2022).

¶12

T.Senthamil Vasan,

¶13

: Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.30304 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Boominathan For R1 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.K.Muthumumar

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.846 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and also abused him. Hence the complaint.

¶22

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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.304 of 2022 dated 11.12.2022 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(2) IPC against the petitioners.

¶23

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

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.846 of 2023

¶27

parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶28

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 counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.T.Sudharsan, SSI, Thiruvattar 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.

¶29

In the instant case, it is a family dispute 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), 324 and 506(2) IPC.

¶30

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 3/6

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.846 of 2023

¶33

Gujrath)

¶34

Gujrath) reported in (2017)9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.

¶35

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

¶36

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.304 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.

¶37

13.02.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No lr

¶38

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

¶39

4/6

¶40

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.846 of 2023

¶41

¶42

The Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶43

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

¶44

5/6

¶45

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

¶46

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.846 of 2023

¶47

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

¶48

¶49

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.846 of 2023

¶50

Dated: 13.02.2023

¶51

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

¶52

6/6

Sivakumar v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivakumar 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

S.R.Madhusudhanan Vs K.Pounraj

Selvendran Vs The Inspector of Police

Vikki @ Vigneshrajan Vs The Inspector of Police

Prasanna Vs The Inspector of Police

Gnanakumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Loganathan Vs The Inspector of Police