Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
Thaniga @ Thanigaivel – Petitioner
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (Crime) Pallavaram Police Station – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 27845 of 2022
Decided On : 09-01-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 294 (b), 323, 397 and 506 (2) - Abused him with filthy language - Amicably settled issues - Praying to call for records in Crime on file of 1st respondent and quash same - Held, When this Court expressed that there are several cases pending against first petitioner and quashing of FIR in Crime cannot be done, learned counsel for petitioners prays this Court to permit him to withdraw petition as against first petitioner - Permission granted - So far as other petitioners are concerned, in view of compromise reached between petitioners 2 and 3 and second respondent/ defacto complainant, this Court is of view that to have a peaceful and healthy relationship hereafter, petitioners 2 and 3 and second respondent/defacto complainant may be permitted to compound offences and FIR against petitioners 2 and 3 in Crime is ordered to be quashed - As against first petitioner, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn - Respondents police are directed to file a final report at earliest preferably within a period of three months from date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in Crime No. 515 of 2022 dated 28.06.2022 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in Crime No. 515 of 2022, dated 28.06.2022, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.06.2022, while the second respondent/defacto complainant went to buy some fish food in a shop, one auto crossed the second respondent/defacto complainant and the petitioners/accused 1 to 3 were in the auto. The petitioners waylaid the second respondent/defacto complainant and abused him with filthy language, beaten him, robbed a sum of Rs. 7,000/- from him at the knife point and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the second respondent/defacto complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent police and the same was registered in Crime No. 515 of 2022, dated 28.06.2022, on the file of the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 341, 294 (b), 323, 397 and 506 (2) IPC.
3. A joint compromise memo is filed by the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant, wherein, it is stated that the petitioners/accused and the second respondent/defacto complainant have amicably settled the issues between them in order to have a peaceful relationship between them. The second respondent/defacto complainant has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No. 515 of 2022. Today, petitioners and second respondent are present before this Court. Second respondent/defacto complainant reaffirmed that he has amicably settled the issue with the petitioners and has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
4. However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the first petitioner is a rowdy and history sheeter and five cases in Crime Nos. 478 of 2011, 546 of 2016, 547 of 2016, 2223 of 2016 and 515 of 2022 are pending against him.
5. When this Court expressed that there are several cases pending against the first petitioner and quashing of FIR in Crime No. 515 of 2022 cannot be done, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays this Court to permit him to withdraw the petition as against the first petitioner. Permission granted. Therefore, Crl. O.P. No. 27845 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn as against the first petitioner.
6. So far as the other petitioners are concerned, in view of the compromise reached between petitioners 2 and 3 and the second respondent/defacto complainant, this Court is of the view that to have a peaceful and healthy relationship hereafter, petitioners 2 and 3 and the second respondent/defacto complainant may be permitted to compound the offences and the FIR against petitioners 2 and 3 in Crime No. 515 of 2022 is ordered to be quashed. As against the first petitioner, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The respondents police are directed to file a final report at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn as against the first petitioner and is allowed as against the second and third petitioner.
The High Court can quash FIRs in personal disputes where parties have reached an amicable settlement, even if the offences are non-compoundable.
The High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings based on compromise between the parties, even if the offenses involved are not compoundable in nature.
The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC can quash criminal proceedings based on voluntary compromise in predominantly private disputes.
The court has the power to quash a complaint for non-compoundable offenses when the parties have compromised the matter, considering the personal nature of the dispute.
The High Court may quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings using inherent powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure when parties reach an amicable settlement and the dispute is purely private a....
Criminal proceedings can be quashed based on compromise if the dispute is private and does not pose serious societal harm.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
