Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 14053
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. ANAND VENKATESH
T.MAANAS – Appellant
Versus
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
Compromises can lead to quashing FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable cases, if both parties mutually agree.
Headnote:
Quash - FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The court quashed the FIR despite its non-compoundable nature based on a joint compromise between the parties, following Supreme Court guidelines.
Fact of the Case:
The Criminal Original Petition sought to quash an FIR regarding a case still under investigation, where both parties had reached an amicable settlement, documented in a Joint Compromise Memo.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that continuing the FIR was unnecessary due to the mutual agreement between the parties, verifying their intentions for an amicable resolution.
Issues: Whether the FIR could be quashed despite the offences being non-compoundable, considering the parties reached a compromise.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it could quash the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where a compromise was reached, even for non-compoundable offences, aligning with Supreme Court precedents.
Final Decision: The Petition was allowed and the FIR was quashed.
O R D E R
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.557 of 2022, pending on the file of the 1st respondent.
2.The case is still at the stage of investigation. The parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
3.The Joint Compromise Memo entered between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent has been filed before this Court which has been signed by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent and the counsel for 2nd respondent. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.M.Prakash, Sub Inspector, S-8 Police Station, Adambakkam, (Mobile No.63822 48962). In the Joint Compromise Memo it has been stated that the petitioners and the 2nd respondent had entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in Crime No.557 of 2022. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
4.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641- (Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Suprme 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. quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.557 of 2022, on the file of the 1st respondent Police.
5.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.557 of 2022, on the file of the 1st respondent police, is quashed and the terms of Joint Compromise Memo shall form part and parcel of this order. Each of the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as costs, to the credit of the President, Tamil Nadu Advocates Clerk Association, Madras High Court, Chennai (Indian Bank, High Court Branch, A/c No.484026006, IFSC Code:IDIB000M157), within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry.
6.Post this case under the caption 'For Reporting Compliance' on
28.03.2024. 08.03.2024 krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No NOTE: Issue order copy on 15.03.2024.
To
1.The State Rep. by its The Inspector of Police, S-8, Adambakkam Police Station, St.Thomas Mount Police District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
krk
08.03.2024
