Allowed

Selvam v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Dec 2024CRL OP(MD)/11352/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal original petition challenging the registration of an FIR under sections dealing with obscene language and hurt. The petitioners and respondent-accused settled the dispute via a joint compromise memo. The court held that useful purpose would not be served in keeping proceedings pending and quashed the case.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Crime No.375 of 2022 on the file of the First Respondent Police are quashed.

Selvam Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11352 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11352 of 2024

¶7

Selvam

¶8

Vasantha Kumar

¶9

Selvakumar

¶10

Sakthi Balan

¶11

... Petitioners

¶12

¶13

The Inspector of Police, Thazhamuthu Nagar Police Station, Thoothukudi District, Crime No.375 of 2022.

¶14

Kalaiselvan

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.375 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Radhakrishnan

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi (R1) Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶19

M/s. A.V.Arun Kumar (R2)

¶20

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11352 of 2024

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

¶24

First Information Report in Crime No.375 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent Police.

¶25

2 . The case of the prosecution is that due to previous

¶26

motive, on 25.10.2022 the accused persons abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and assaulted her and his family members. Hence this present case.

¶27

3 . 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 Police and on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.375 of 2022, dated 25.10.2022 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act against the petitioners.

¶28

4. The case is still under the investigation. By passage of

¶29

time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the

¶30

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11352 of 2024

¶32

dispute amicably among themselves.

¶33

5 . A Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 24.07.2024, has

¶34

been filed before this Court, which has 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.D.Kumaravel, SSI, Thazhamuthunagar North Police Station, Thoothukudi District, 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.

¶35

6 . In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and

¶36

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 IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act.

¶37

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

¶38

in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in

¶39

3/6

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11352 of 2024

¶42

(2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of

¶43

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

¶44

8 . In the light of the guidelines issued in the above said

¶45

Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings in Crime No.375 of 2022, pending before the first respondent Police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

¶46

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands

¶47

allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.375 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.

¶48

19.12.2024

¶49

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No PNM

¶50

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11352 of 2024

¶52

¶53

1.The Inspector of Police, Thazhamuthu Nagar Police Station, Thoothukudi District, Crime No.375 of 2022.

¶54

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

¶55

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11352 of 2024

¶57

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶58

PNM

¶59

Order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11352 of 2024

¶60

19.12.2024

¶61

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Selvam v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvam 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

L.Rilda Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.Manoj Vs The Inspector of Police

Satheesh Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Panda @ Yasin @ Mohammed Yasin Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Kamalarasan Vs State of TamilNadu Rep by

Kamalarasan Vs State of TamilNadu Rep by