1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.12757 and 13256 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 and 1 of 2011 1.Sureshkumar 2.Ilangovan 3.S.R.Gopalakrishnan @ Gopi ...Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.12757 of 2011/ Accused 4,5 & 8 4.S.Raja 5.S.Kumar 3.R.D.Sankarachary ...Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.13256 of 2011/ Accused NO.1,3 & 6 Vs. 1.The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai City in crime No.76 of 2011 2.A.Mahendran ...Respondents in both petitions Prayer in both petitions: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the F.I.R. registered in crime No.76 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal, so far as the petitioners are concerned. For Petitioners in : Mr.R.Gandhi for both petitions Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For Respondents : Mrs.S.Prabha, (in both petitions) Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R These petitions have been filed to call for the records relating to the F.I.R. registered in crime No.76 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal, so far as the petitioners are concerned. 2.Today, when the cases were taken up, the petitioners/A4,5 and 8 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12757 of 2011 and the petitioners/A1,3 and 6 and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant are present. The petitioners in both the petitions are the accused and the second respondent in both the petitions is the defacto complainant in the case in crime No.76 of 2011 has been registered by the 1st respondent police. 3.The petitioners in both the petitions and the defacto complainant/2nd respondent in both the petitions have submitted a joint memorandum of compromise separately in both petitions by stating that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 they have compromised the dispute had in between them including the dispute had with A2 and A7, who are not parties here. The petitioners in both the petitioners viz., A1, 3 to 6 and 8 and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant in both the petitions admitted the compromise had in between them. Apart from the joint compromise memo filed in each of the petition, a supporting affidavit sworn by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant was also filed for withdrawal of the complaint filed by him against the accused persons in crime No.76 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent police. Therefore, I am fully satisfied to record the joint compromise entered into between the parties in both the petitions. 4.Heard Mr.R.Gandhi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both petitions and Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the State. 5.According to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the dispute in between the defacto complainant and the accused persons have been solved due to the compromise reached by them and hence, the offences said to have been committed by the accused persons viz., 143, 342, 365, 166, 167, 465, 468, 471, 387, 506(2) read with 120(B) I.P.C. are necessarily to be quashed, even though certain provisions are not covered under Section 320 Cr.P.C. as non compoundable. He would cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 858 in between Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, for the principle that technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing the criminal proceedings, since continuance of the same after the compromise arrived in between parties would be a futile exercise. Therefore, he would request the Court that the offences, which are not covered under Section 320 Cr.P.C. are also to be quashed by following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment and thus the entire complaint and the registration of F.I.R. in crime No.76 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent, may be quashed. 6.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in her argument that she has no serious objection since the matter has been settled in between the parties and if the FI.R. is quashed, necessary instructions would be given to the 1st respondent to stop the investigation and to record the quashment in the records. 7.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit in his argument that the entire dispute in between the defacto complainant and the petitioners i.e. the accused persons were compromised and there is no necessity to continue the investigation or to proceed against the petitioners. 8.Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the dispute in between the parties have been entirely compromised as per the submissions made by the defacto complainant and the accused persons, who were present before this Court. The joint compromise memo filed in both the cases would also evidence the same. Supporting affidavit filed by the defacto complainant/2nd respondent would also confirm the compromise had in between the parties. If in the meanwhile, the complaint against the petitioners under Sections 143, 365, 166, 167, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 465, 468, 471, 387 read with 120(B) I.P.C, which are non compoundable as per Section 320 Cr.P.C. are not quashed and is ordered to be continued, it would certainly a futile exercise as per the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Moreover, no charge sheet has been filed. At any time, the offences, which are non compoundable in nature may be converted or altered into compoundable offences depending upon the evidence collected during investigation. Therefore, there is no necessity of continuing the investigation or to keep the F.I.R. on file. 9.In the above said circumstances, I am of the considered view that the F.I.R. registered in crime NO.76 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent police, based upon the complaint of the defacto complainant is hereby ordered to be quashed. 10.Accordingly, these petitions are ordered and the F.I.R. in crime No.76 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent police is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners/A1,3 to 6 and 8 and A2 and A7 also. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd.- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai City 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +2cc s to M.Ajmalkhan, Advocate,SR.No.41425, 41426 +2ccs to Mr.T.LajapathiRoy, Advocate,SR.No.41192, 41191 arul GH : 09.12.2011 : 3p/7c Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12757 and 13256 of 2011 23.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/