Allowed

Satheesh v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC18 Dec 2024CRL OP(MD)/16909/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition to quash an FIR based on a personal dispute. The Court found that the parties had compromised the dispute amicably and upheld the quashing of proceedings despite the offences being non-compoundable, relying on Apex Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition allowing the quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.145 of 2024 is allowed. The terms of the joint compromise memo dated 11.07.2024 shall form part of the order.

Satheesh Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16909 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16909 of 2024

¶7

Satheesh ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Inspector of Police Vadasery Police Station Kanyakumari District

¶10

Chandrakalatharan ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.145 of 2024 dated 25.05.2024 on the file of the first respondent, The Inspector of Police, Vadasery police station, kanyakumari district and quash the same as against the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravanakumar For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate(Crl.Side) \ For R2 : Mr.S.Prasanth

¶13

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

¶14

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16909 of 2024

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.145 of 2024 dated 25.05.2024 on the file of the first respondent.

¶17

2 . The case of the prosecution is that on 25.05.2024 at about 6.30 a.m., while the complainant was going to Palaiyaaru with his son at that time the petitioner in this case intercepted the defacto-complainant and asked for the money from his pocket. When the petitioner pointed and threatened with a knife to kill him, the defacto-complainant took out money of Rs.230/- from his shirt pocket and also he made noise. At that time one Ganesan saw and shouted, hence the Petitioner threatened them with a knife and left the said spot. On the basis of the defactocomplainant's complaint, the a case has been registered.

¶18

3 . 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 Police and

¶19

2/6

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16909 of 2024

¶22

on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.145 of 2024, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323,387 and 506(ii) of IPC against the petitioner.

¶23

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

¶24

5 . A Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 11.07.2024, has been filed

¶25

before this Court, which has 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.S.Vysekumar, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Vadasery 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.

¶26

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16909 of 2024

¶28

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

¶29

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), 323,387 and 506(ii) of IPC.

¶30

7 . The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat) reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.

¶31

8 . 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.145 of 2024 pending before the first respondent Police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

¶32

9 . Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and

¶33

as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.145 of 2024, on the file of the

¶34

4/6

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16909 of 2024

¶37

first respondent Police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo dated 11.07.2024, shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶38

18.12.2024

¶39

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No aav

¶40

¶41

The Inspector of Police Vadasery Police Station Kanyakumari District

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16909 of 2024

¶45

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶46

aav

¶47

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16909 of 2024

¶48

18.12.2024

¶49

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

Satheesh v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheesh v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

Athi Ilavarasan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Valliammai @ Pavithra Vs R.Selvakumar

Arul Jeba Ranjith Vs The Superintendent of Police

L.Rilda Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.Manoj Vs The Inspector of Police

Tamilselvam Vs The State of Tamil Nadu