Allowed

Dhanush @ Thanush v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC2 Sept 2024CRL OP(MD)/8315/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC. Quashing an FIR registered against petitioners for offences including affray and criminal intimidation. The Court ruled that despite the offences being non-compoundable, proceedings need not continue as parties had reached an amicable settlement.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.219 of 2024 is quashed insofar as it concerns the petitioners; terms of joint compromise memo dated 08.07.2024 form part of the order.

Dhanush @ Thanush Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8315 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8315 of 2024 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.5662 of 2024

¶7

1.Dhanus @ Thanush

¶8

2.Siva

¶9

3.Alagarsami @ Alagarsamy

¶10

4.Balammal

¶11

5.Chandra @ Chandira

¶12

6.Sridevi ... Petitioners/A1 to A6

¶13

Vs.

¶14

1.The Inspector of Police, Thenkarai Police Station, Theni District. Crime No.219 of 2024.

¶15

2.Sudhakar ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.219 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Vishnu

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1.

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8315 of 2024

¶21

: Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz, for R2.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.219 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant with sickle and abused him in filthy language and also attacked his wife. Hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint.

¶25

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 and on that basis, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.219 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002, against the petitioners.

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8315 of 2024

¶28

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.

¶29

A Joint Memo of Compromise dated 08.07.2024 has been filed before this Court which have 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 Mr.P.Katturaja, SSI, Thenkarai Police Station, Theni District. 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.

¶30

In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and now 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 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002.

¶31

The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Panjab and another reported in (2012)10

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8315 of 2024

¶34

SCC 303 and Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath)

¶35

reported in (2017)9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.

¶36

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

¶37

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.219 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo dated 08.07.2024 shall form part and parcel of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶38

02.09.2024

¶39

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No das

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8315 of 2024

¶42

¶43