Allowed

Balaji v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC13 Dec 2024CRL OP(MD)/17969/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

One criminal petition was filed to quash an FIR registered for offences under the BNS Act arising from a personal dispute. The parties reached an amicable compromise via a joint memo. The High Court held quashing appropriate and allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.397 of 2024 are quashed; terms of joint compromise memo form part of the order.

Balaji Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17969 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17969 of 2024

¶7

Balaji

¶8

Sangari

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

¶11

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station, Sivagangai District. Crime No.397 of 2024.

¶12

Mariappan

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to Crime No.397/2024 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr. V.Sitharanjan

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar (R1) Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. N.Mohan(R2)

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17969 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

¶22

FIR in Crime No.397 of 2024, pending on the file of the 1^st respondent Police.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that on 07.09.2024, at about 06.30 p.m., the accused persons assaulted the defacto complainant/R2 and caused injuries. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent lodged a complaint, based on which, a case in Crime No.397 of 2024, for offence under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 115(2), 303 and 351(3) of BNS Act, was registered against the petitioners.

¶24

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.397 of 2024, for the offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 115(2), 303 and 351(3) of BNS Act against the petitioners and others.

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17969 of 2024

¶27

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

¶28

time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. Further, it is a case and case in counter.

¶29

5 . A Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 11.12.2024, has

¶30

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 Ms.B.Pandiammal, WSSI of Police, Thiruppuvanam 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.

¶31

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

¶32

now the parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17969 of 2024

¶35

the matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 115(2), 303 and 351(3) of BNS Act.

¶36

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

¶37

(2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat) reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.

¶38

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

¶39

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands

¶40

allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.397 of 2024, on the file of the first respondent Police, is quashed and the terms of joint

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17969 of 2024

¶44

compromise memo dated 11.12.2024, shall form part and parcel of this order.