1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 06.07.2018

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10626 of 2018

1.Yosuwan

2.Stephen Rajadurai

3.Gnanaprakasam

4.Chelladurai

5.Anthony

6.Arputharaj

7.Selvakumar

8.Jebasingh

9.Nirmal Singh @ Raj Nirmal

.. Petitioners

vs.

1.State rep.by

The Inspector of Police,

Kuruvikulam Police Station,

Tiruneveli District.

Crime No.198 of 2018.

2.Pandian @ Anthony

.. Respondents

Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure to call for the records in connection with the impugned

FIR in Crime No.198 of 2018 on the file of 1st Respondent Police and

quash the same.

For Petitioners

: Mr.K.Sankar

For R1

: Mr.Prabhu Ramachandran

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

For R2

: Mr.M.Ganesh Kumar

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the First

Information Report registered in Crime No.198 of 2018 on the file of

the first respondent.

2.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein,

the first respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.198 of

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2

2018 for the offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC

against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 9 and in order to quash the

same, the petitioners are before this Court by filing the present

petition, on the ground that both the parties have arrived at a

compromise.

3.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing,

Mr.G.Arumugasamy, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam

Police Station, Tiruneveli District is present. The defacto

complainant and the petitioners are present and their

identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the

confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned

Government Advocate (Criminal side) through Mr.G.Arumugasamy, the

Special Sub Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station,

Tiruneveli District. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also

endorsed the identify of their respective parties.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners filed

this quash petition along with a joint memo of compromise filed on

25.06.2018, wherein, it is stated as follows:

"2.It is respectfully submitted that it is a case,

case in counter and the counter case has been registered

against the 2^nd respondent and others in Crime No.197 of

2018. Now the village elders intervened the matter and

compromised both the parties. In view of the advice of

the village elders, now the 2^nd respondent is not

willing to proceed further with the criminal case in

respect of Crime No.198 of 2018 pending on the file of

the 1^st respondent police and settle the issue through

out of court. To that effect the joint compromise memo

is filed.

It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble

Court may be pleased to accept this joint compromise

memo and pass appropriate orders...”

5.When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters

in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.406, 530 and 864 of 2016 (Prabu and others vs.

State Rep. By The Inspector of Police and others), decided on

28.01.2016, this Court considered the various decisions rendered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in several cases, namely,

Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303],

B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant

vs. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Narinder Singh and others vs. State of

Punjab and another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh

vs. Manish and others [(2015) 8 SCC 307] and observed as under:

“11. If the offences against women and children and the

IPC offences falling under the categories, like, murder,

attempt to murder, offence against unsound mind, rape,

bribe, fabrication of documents, false evidence, robbery,

dacoity, abduction, kidnapping, minor girl rape, idol theft,

preventing a public servant from discharging of his/her

duty,