1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15589 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 Agniraj ...Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Inspector of Police, B6-Jaihindpuram Police Station, Madurai District.(FIR No.970/2011) 2. Ismail ...Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the proceeding in FIR No.970 of 2011 dated 11.07.2011 on the file of the 1st respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran For 1st Respondent : Mr.Kandasamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For second Respondent: Mr.C.Annanithi O R D E R The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner has been implicated for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., and he has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the FIR No.970 of 2011 dated 11.07.2011 on the file of the 1st respondent police. 2. Heard Mr.R.Maheswaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr.Mr.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent and Mr.C.Annanithi, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent / de-facto complainant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant/second respondent herein have amicably settled the matter between them. It is submitted that an affidavit also filed before this Court, signed by second respondent to that effect. It is also submitted that the petitioner as well as the de-facto complainant also present before this Court today. He would further submit in his argument that the de-facto complainant has no objection for quashing the proceedings initiated on the basis of his complaint for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. This Court may record the settlement arrived at between the parties and also may give liberty to the petitioner to move for quashing the FIR in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the investigation has been completed and however the charge sheet is yet to be filed. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and also perused the materials available on record. 6. It is seen that the petitioner has been implicated for the alleged offences as state above. Both the petitioner and the de-facto complainant/second respondent appeared before this Court and admitted that the matter was amicably settled in between them. It is also seen from the affidavit signed by the the second respondent/de-facto complainant, filed before this Court. 7. I could see from the affidavit filed by the second respondent as well as the statement made by him before this Court, the de-facto complainant is not interested in pursuing the matter further. 8. In view of the compromise reached in between the parties, I could see that the continuing of investigation and the filing of charge sheet on the foot of the FIR filed in Cr.No. 970 of 2011, dated 11.07.2011 before the first respondent would not in any way help the parties and if it is permitted, it would be an empty formality. Therefore, I have no hesitation to pass an order of quashing the FIR. ' 9. Accordingly, the Proceedings initiated against the petitioner in FIR No. 970 of 2011, dated 11.07.2011, on the file of the first respondent, is hereby quashed and this Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) / True Copy / Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police, B6-Jaihindpuram Police Station, Madurai District. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. +1CC TO M/S.R.MAHESWARAN, ADVOCATE SR : 42335 Vsg SR : 27.12.2011 : 2p/4c Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15589 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 30.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/