Allowed

Rajamanickam v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC20 Dec 2024CRL OP(MD)/17044/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings arising from a rash and negligent vehicular accident. The court allowed the petition noting a valid joint compromise memo signed by the parties, finding that continuing the investigation served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.166/2024 on the file of the First Respondent are quashed.

Rajamanickam Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17044 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17044 of 2024 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.10703 of 2024

Rajamanickam

... Petitioner

The State Rep by Inspector of Police, T.Kallupatti Police Station, Madurai District. Cr.No.166/2024..

¶11

Santhiyadevi

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to FIR in Crime No.166/2024, dated 08.07.2024 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. G.Hari Haran,

¶15

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

¶16

M/s. R.Raja Ganapathy (R2)

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17044 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

¶21

First Information Report in Crime No.166 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent Police.

¶22

2 . The case of the prosecution is that on 07.07.2024, the accused person drove the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 42 E 7493 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle of the deceased, thereby, he died at the spot. Hence this present case lodged by the defacto complainant, who is the wife of the deceased.

¶23

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 on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.166 of 2024, for the offences under Section 281, 106 of BNS Act against the petitioner.

¶24

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

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17044 of 2024

¶28

dispute amicably among themselves.

¶29

5 . A Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 18.10.2024, has

¶30

been filed 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.M.Mani Murugan, SSI of Police, T.Kallupatti Police Station, Madurai 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. The defacto complainant has also received the compensation amount from the petitioner.

¶31

6 . In the instant case, the parties had compromised their

¶32

dispute. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offences under Section 281, 106 of BNS Act.

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17044 of 2024

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings in Crime No.166 of 2024, pending before the first respondent Police, even though, the offence involved is not compoundable in nature.

¶39

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands

¶40

allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.166 of 2024, 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

20.12.2024

¶42

NCC : Yes / No

¶43

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

¶44

4/6

¶45

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17044 of 2024

¶46

Index
PNM

¶47

Index : Yes / No PNM To 1.The Inspector of Police, T.Kallupatti Police Station, Madurai District. Cr.No.166/2024. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶48

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

¶49

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17044 of 2024

¶50

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶51

PNM

¶52

Order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17044 of 2024 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.10703 of 2024

¶53

20.12.2024

¶54

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

Rajamanickam v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamanickam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvam Vs The Inspector of Police

Panda @ Yasin @ Mohammed Yasin Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Kamalarasan Vs State of TamilNadu Rep by

Sumitha Rani Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Dhanasekaran @ Dhanush Vs The Commissioner of Police

Mani Vs The State of Tamil Nadu