1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15894 of 2011 1.Sankar 2.Perumal 3.Muppidari 4.Ramamoorthy Asari 5.Murugeswari 6.Kittu 7.Sankaranarayanan 8.Sakthi ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Valliyoor,Tirunelveli District. 2.N.Sudha ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in FIR no.11 of 2011 dated 14.07.2011 on the file of the 1st respondent Police. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Maheswaran For Respondents : Mr.Kandasamy, G.A.(Crl.side) for R1 Mr.C.Susikumar for R2 O R D E R Heard Mr.R.Maheswaran, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 2.A joint memorandum of compromise has been filed by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant. The petitioners 1, 3 to 6 and 8 and the de facto complaint are present. They admitted the joint memorandum of compromise. 3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners 2 and 7 have not attended the Court since they are located at a distance place and they are also willing to agree with the compromise as reached by the petitioners and the de facto complainant. The first petitioner / husband and the de facto complainant / 2nd respondent have stated that they have joined together and they are living as husband and wife in the martial house along with the other petitioners. The de facto complainant has filed an affidavit to that effect and she also admitted the execution of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the affidavit before Court. 4.In view of the compromise entered between the parities, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners and A2 and A7 need not be pursuaded by the 1st respondent Police has not been established in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. Reported in 2008(3) SCC (Crl.) 858 It has been categorically mentioned that after the compromise of the dispute in between the de facto complainant and the accused persons, the continuance of the proceedings would be an empty formality and it would be a futile exercise if it is continued. 5.As the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court is inclined to record the compromise and quash the FIR filed against the petitioners. There is no necessity for the first respondent Police to continue the investigation. Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to close the FIR since it is quashed by this Court. The petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Valliyoor,Tirunelveli District. 2 The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15894 of 2011 15.12.2011 nbj sma/26.12.2011/3c/2p https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/