1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :14-03-2011 CORAM The HONURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN Crl.O.P(MD)No.2630 of 2011 1.Seeni Sikkandar 2.Musafar Arafath Masthan : Petitioners/A2 & 3 vs. 1.The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sayalkudi Police Station, Crime No.199 of 2008 Ramanathapuram District. : 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Syed Ibrahim : 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the case in PRC No.29 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkateswaran For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Muthu Venkatesan Government Advocate Criminal Side For 2nd respondent : Mr.K.Chengiz Khan for M/s.P.Mariyal Baby O R D E R This petition is filed to quash the charge sheet filed in PRC No.29 of 2009 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur. 2.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are Accused Nos.2 and 3 and even as per the charge sheet, the 1st Accused armed with knife and with an intention to murder the PW1 attempted to stab the PW1 with knife and the PW1 sustained simple injury on his thigh and the overtact attributed to the petitioners viz., Accused Nos.2 and 3 was that they caught hold on the hands of PW1. 3.He further submitted that the 1st Accused is dead and there is no charge framed against the petitioners for offence under section 34 of IPC and having regard to the overtact, they can be charged only for the offence under section 342 of I.P.C, which is compoundable and the parties have also entered into a compromise and both the parties are present in Court. 4.Mr.K.Chengiz Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also submitted that the parties have settled the matter between themselves and the de-facto Complainant has agreed to compound the offence. 5.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and he has submitted that charge sheet was laid against the petitioners for the offences under section 342 and 307 of I.P.C and therefore, the offences are not compoundable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6.According to me, as per the statement of witnesses and as per the charge sheet, only 1st Accused was armed with knife and he stabbed the PW1 and the petitioners viz., Accused Nos.2 and 3 were only holding the hands of PW1. Admittedly, the petitioners were not charged for the offence under section 34 of IPC. Admittedly the 1st Accused is also dead. Hence, the petitioners can be charged only for the offence under section 342 of I.P.C., which is compoundable and the parties are also entered into a compromise between themselves. 7.Hence, this petition is allowed and the charge sheet is quashed. SD/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To, 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur. 2.The Inspector of Police, Sayalkudi Police Station, Crime NO.199/2008, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai 4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1 CC to Mr. R.Venkateswaran, Advocate, SR.No.6685 er order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2630 of 2011 14.03.2011 TR : 24.03.2011 : 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/