Allowed

Panda @ Yasin @ Mohammed Yasin v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC19 Dec 2024CRL OP(MD)/19174/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners following an amicable compromise between the petitioners and the second respondent. The Court held that keeping proceedings pending served no useful purpose after reconciliation.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.173 of 2023 are quashed as against the petitioners.

Panda @ Yasin @ Mohammed Yasin Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19174 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.19174 of 2024 and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.4503 & 4505 of 2024

¶7

Panda @ Yasin @ Mohammed Yasin

¶8

Chenna @ Sivanesan @ Sivaneswaran

¶9

Selva @ Selvakumar

¶10

Moosin @ Muhsin Kamel

¶11

Jainul @ Syed Jainul Abideen

¶12

Aasik@ Mohammed Asick

¶13

Hasan @ Mohammed Hasan

¶14

... Petitioners

¶15

¶16

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Devakottai Town Police Station, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. Crime No. 88 of 2023.

¶17

Ajithkan

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

1/6

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19174 of 2024

¶22

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records of the impugned charge sheet C.C No. 173 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate court, Devakottai and quash the same as illegal.

¶23

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

¶24

M/s. M.Sevanthi (R2)

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking

¶27

Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.173 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai.

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that due to wordy quarrel

¶29

between the parties, on 30.04.2023 at about 01.30 p.m., the accused persons abused and assaulted him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19174 of 2024

¶33

submit that the second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent and an FIR has been registered in Crime No.88 of 2023. After investigation, a final report has been filed and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.173 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, for the offences under Sections 341, 147, 294(b), 323, 324, 427 and 506(ii) IPC, against the petitioners.

¶34

4 . The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties

¶35

have decided to bury their hatchet and compromised the dispute amicably among themselves, for the reason that sudden wordy quarrel led to exchange of blows, it was not a premeditated attack and both parties contributed to the happenings. Now, both realized their mistakes, reconciled and second respondent is agreeing to withdraw the complaint and is not willing to pursue the case.

¶36

5 . A Joint Memo of Compromise dated 08.11.2024 is filed

¶37

before this Court signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and their respective counsels. The petitioners and the second respondent are present before this Court, identified by Mr.S.Samsudeen, Special Sub

¶38

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

¶39

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19174 of 2024

¶40

Inspector of Police, Devakottai Town Police Station, Sivagangai District, as well as by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. This Court enquired both the parties and satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves on their own voluntarily without any compulsion.

¶41

6 . In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature arisen out of wordy quarrel and the sudden quarrel led to exchange of blows and the parties had compromised. When the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has the power to quash the complaint for the offence under Sections 341, 147, 294(b), 323, 324, 427 and 506(ii) IPC.

¶42

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

¶43

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 was taken into consideration.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19174 of 2024

¶47

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings in C.C.No.173 of 2023 as against the petitioners pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, even though the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

¶48

9 . Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.173 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, is quashed as against the petitioners and the joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶49

19.12.2024

¶50

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No PNM

¶51

¶52

The Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai

¶53

2.The Inspector of Police, Devakottai Town Police Station, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶54

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

¶55

5/6

¶56

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

¶57

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19174 of 2024

¶58

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶59

PNM

¶60

Order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19174 of 2024 and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.4503 & 4505 of 2024

¶61

19.12.2024

¶62

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

Panda @ Yasin @ Mohammed Yasin v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panda @ Yasin @ Mohammed Yasin 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

L.Rilda Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.Manoj Vs The Inspector of Police

Satheesh Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Selvam Vs The Inspector of Police

Kamalarasan Vs State of TamilNadu Rep by

Kamalarasan Vs State of TamilNadu Rep by