1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition(MD)No.16732 of 2011 and M.P.No.2 of 2011 1.Sagathevan 2.Arjunan ... Petitioners/Accused 6 & 7 Vs. 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Theni. In Cr.No.46/2011 ... 1st Respondent/complainant 2.N.Chinnamayan ... 2nd Respondent/De facto complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records of FIR in Cr.No.46/2011 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same. For Petitioners :: Mr.R.P.Karuppasamy For Respondent :: Mr.C.Ramesh Addl.Public Prosecutor for R-1 Party-in-person for R-2 O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to to call for the records of FIR in Cr.No.46/2011 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same. 2.Heard Mr.R.P.Karuppasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.C.Ramesh, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the second respondent/de facto complainant, who has appeared as party-in- person. 3.Both the petitioners and the de facto complainant/2nd respondent are present. A memorandum of compromise has been filed jointly. Both the petitioners and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant admitted that their disputes have been compromised and the differences have been settled at the intervention of village elders. 4.The affidavit of the de facto complainant has been filed and he has also admitted that he has executed the said affidavit. In the said affidavit, he is willing to withdraw the complaint given by him and not to pursue the case in Cr.No.46 of 2011 pending before the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Theni District, under Sections 465, 471 and 420 of I.P.C. Those offences are no doubt compoundable in nature. In the said circumstances, if the case is pursued, it would be an empty formality and nothing would be achieved and it would be also a futile exercise. The Apex Court would also in Nikil Merchant vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2008(3) SCC (Cri) 858, categorically mentioned as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 "Consequent upon the compromise of the suit and having regard to the contents of Clause 11 of the consent terms, which read that neither party had any claim against the other and parties were withdrawing all allegations and counter-allegations made against each other, the appellant herein filed an application for discharge from the criminal complaint, in respect of which charge sheet had been filed by CBI. The said application was rejected by the court which came to be challenged by the appellant before the High Court. The High Court rejected the appellant's prayer for discharge from the criminal cases. Before the Supreme Court, it was urged by the respondents that all the ingredients of the offences committed under Sections 468 and 471 as also Section 420 I.P.C. were made out in the charge-sheet, and hence, even if the matter was compromised between the parties, the criminal proceedings could not be compounded on that basis since the offences involved also included non-compoundable offences. The appellant contended that B.S.Joshi case, (2003) 4 SCC 675, squarely covered the facts of the instant case since in exercise of inherent powers, the Supreme Court could transcend the limitation imposed under section 320 Cr.P.C. and pass orders quashing criminal proceedings or F.I.R. or complaint even where non-compoundable offences were involved. On an overall view of the facts and keeping in mind the decision in B.S.Joshi case, (2003) 4 SCC 675, and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also Clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise." 5.Therefore, I find that since the dispute in between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant have been settled amicably, there is no reason for continuing the FIR in Cr.No.46 of 2011 pending before the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Theni District. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the case in Cr.No.46 of 2011 pending before the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Theni District against the petitioners herein/accused 6 & 7 alone is liable to be quashed. In respect of other accused persons, the police could proceed. 6.With the aforesaid observations, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected M.P.No.2/2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Theni. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1. CC to Mr.Subash Babu, Advocate, SR.No. 45206 vs Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16732 of 2011 21.12.2011 TR : 10.01.2012: 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/