1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14836 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 1.Sahayanathan 2.Sargunam 3.Sonai 4.Senthilkumar 5.Abudaheer @ Sheyad Abudaheer ...Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.C.Patti Police Station Theni District Crime No.253 of 2011 2.Karuppiah ...Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the F.I.R. in crime No.253 of 2011 dated 26.07.2011 on the file of the 1st respondent police, against the petitioners. For Petitioners : Mr.Veera Kathiravan For Respondents : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 Mr.M.Chellapandian for R2 O R D E R This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in crime No.253 of 2011 dated 26.07.2011 on the file of the 1st respondent police, against the petitioners. 2.Heard Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent and Mr.M.Chellapandian, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3.When the matter has come up, the defacto complainant and his wife are present. The petitioners are also present and they have filed a joint memorandum of compromise. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant admitted the execution of joint memorandum of compromise. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the matter has been compromised and nothing survives to pursue the investigation in the case and therefore, the F.I.R. may be quashed. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that he has no objection for quashment of the F.I.R. in crime No.253 of 2011 dated 26.07.2011 on the file of the 1st respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the investigation is pending and the offence are said to have been under Section 366 I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and those offences are not compoundable in nature. 7.Considering the submissions made on either side, I could see that no doubt the petitioners and the defacto complainant have compromised their disputes and they have come to the conclusion and the defacto complainant has no idea to pursue his complaint. However, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioners against the defacto complainant and his wife viz., Parameshwari are serious in nature and it is for the police to examine the defacto complainant as well as his wife Parameshwari, if not examined so far and if already examined, to examine further in respect of the compromise and to do the investigation in accordance with law, after considering the joint memorandum of compromise had in between the parties. The respondent police is further directed that after the completion of investigation, to file the final report on the basis of the collection of evidence from the defacto complainant and his wife. 8.With the aforesaid observation and direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. SD/- Assistant Registrar(T & P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The The Sub Inspector of Police, P.C.Patti Police Station Theni District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai. arul Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14836 of 2011 07.12.2011 TR : 20.12.2011 : 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/