Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J
R.Ponnaiah – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector – Respondent
CRL OP(MD)/16297/2021
A criminal prosecution can be quashed if the parties have reached a compromise and the defacto complainant does not want to pursue the matter.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - COMPROMISE - PARTIES HAVE FILED A JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO - DE FACTO COMPLAINANT DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE MATTER - NO PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED IN KEEPING THE IMPOUNDED PROSECUTION ALIVE - IMPOUNDED PROCEEDINGS QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a criminal original petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.118 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the defacto complainant and the victim were present before the court through video conferencing and they have filed a joint compromise memo. The defacto complainant stated that he does not want to pursue the matter.
Issues: Whether the impugned proceedings should be quashed in light of the compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the defacto complainant himself does not want to pursue the matter, no purpose will be served in keeping the impugned prosecution alive.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal original petition and quashed the impugned proceedings.
CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.16297 OF 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16297 of 2021
1. R.Ponnaiah
2. C.Maharajan
3. S.Karthick @ Ajay Karthick ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Thirunagar police station,
Thirunagar,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.366 of 2018)
... 1st Respondent / Complainant
2. M.Rajendran
... 2nd Respondent /
Defacto Complainant
3. Thirumurugan
... 3rd Respondent /
Injured Victim
Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.C.No.118 of 2019 on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioners
: Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh
For R-1
: Mr.A.Albert James,
Government Advocate.
For R-2 &R-3
: Mr.G.Balaji
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. This criminal original petition has been filed for quashing
the impugned proceedings.
3. The defacto complainant Mr.Rajendran as well as the victim
Mr.Thirumurugan are present before this Court through video
conferencing. They have been duly identified by the police
personnel attached to the first respondent police station and the
same has been duly confirmed by Mr.A.Albert James, learned
Government Advocate. The parties have filed a joint compromise
memo. The defacto complainant states that he does not want to
pursue the matter.
4. Since the defacto complainant himself does not want to
pursue the matter, no purpose will be served in keeping the
1/2
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.16297 OF 2021
impugned prosecution alive. Therefore, the impugned proceedings
are quashed. This criminal original petition is allowed. The joint
compromise memo dated 21.04.2021 shall form part of the record.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (AD II)
// True Copy //
/ /2022
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
PMU
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
(ENCL : Copy of Joint Compromise Memo)
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.VI,
Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Thirunagar police station,
Thirunagar,
Madurai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.P.PETHU RAJESH, Advocate ( SR-53[F] dated
03/01/2022 )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16297 of 2021
03.01.2022
VR(CO)
SB(11.01.2022) 2P 5C
2/2
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
