Allowed

Solai @ Sozhapandi v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Jun 2024CRL OP(MD)/5835/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed criminal proceedings in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) IPC. The court recorded that a settlement was reached between the parties and verified the voluntary nature of the compromise, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent further conflict despite some offences being non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed and Cr.No.76 of 2024 quashed.

Solai @ Sozhapandi Vs The Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5835 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5835 of 2024

¶7

1.Solai @ Sozhapandi

¶8

2.Selvam @ Selvapandi

¶9

3.Karaimurugan

¶10

4.Surya @ Suriyaprakash

¶11

5.Karuppu @ Karuppasamy

¶12

6.Sakthi @ Sakthimurugan

¶13

7.Thangamalai @ Thangamalaigopal ... Petitioners

¶14

Vs.

¶15

1.The Inspector of Police, Tirumangalam Taluk Police Station, Madurai District.

¶16

(In Crime No.76 of 2024)

¶17

2.Naveenkumar

¶18

3.Karthick

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.76 of 2024

¶21

1/6

¶22

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5835 of 2024

¶23

dated 31.03.2024 pending on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioners.

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sivaprakash For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate(Crl.side) For R2 : Mr.S.Azhagumalai

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners are accused in Cr.No.76 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent, which was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) IPC. They have filed this petition to quash the proceedings pending as against them.

¶27

2.The petitioners / accused and the defacto complainant are nearby villagers. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had love affair with the girl, who is belonging to the accused’s village. Due to which, the accused persons abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and also attacked him with wooden-log. Hence, the case.

¶28

3.The defacto complainant and the petitioners are present before this

¶29

Court and they submitted that on the intervention of the elders, they have https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

2/6

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5835 of 2024

¶32

amicably resolved their issue. A compromise memo, dated 05.04.2024 signed by the parties, is also filed before this Court.

¶33

4.Before entertaining this application on the ground of compromise,

¶34

this court has also directed the investigation officer in Crime No.76 of 2024 to personally verify with the defacto complainant and to ascertain whether the compromise is a voluntary one, without any threat or coercion. The investigating officer, after due verification, has filed a report as under:

¶35

This is to certify that, as directed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5835 of 2024, I personally verified the defacto complainant in Cr.No.76 of 2024, and ascertained that the compromise arrived between the accused and the defacto complainant/victims in the above case is voluntary, without any threat or coercion.

¶36

I further clarify that there are no other victims in this case, except the victims appeared before this Hon’ble Court today.

¶37

5.The parties are present. This Court has verified the parties with their Aadhaar cards and also verified the present status. The defacto complainant has expressed his willingness to solve the issue. Since the parties have reached settlement, the continuance of legal proceedings would serve no purpose.

¶38

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

¶39

3/6

¶40

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5835 of 2024

¶41

6.In view of the above development and in the light of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 , and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10 , this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is inclined to quash FIR in Cr.No.76 of 2024on the file of the first respondent, though certain offence are non-compoundable in order to avoid further conflict between the parties.

¶42

7.Accordingly, by recording the compromise memo 05.04.2024 this criminal original petition is allowed and the case in Cr.No.76 of 2024 pending on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed. The joint compromise memo dated 05.04.2024 shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶43

18.06.2024

¶44

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes gns

¶45

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

¶46

4/6

¶47

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5835 of 2024

¶48

¶49

1.The Inspector of Police, Tirumangalam Taluk Police Station, Madurai District.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

5/6

¶53

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5835 of 2024

¶54

B.PUGALENDHI,J

¶55

gns

¶56

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5835 of 2024

¶57

18.06.2024

¶58

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

¶59

6/6

Solai @ Sozhapandi v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Solai @ Sozhapandi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Jeyaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Logu Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Thangavel Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Maria Suji Vs The Inspector of Police

Peterraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Arthi Kannan Vs The Inspector of Police