1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.834 of 2011 1. Krishnamal 2. Alagarsamy 3. Ganesan 4. Mohanraj 5. Murugan 6. Anandan 7. Manakkan 8. Balakrishnan 9. Mariappan ... Petitioners Vs. 1. State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nathampatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.172 of 2007). 2. R.Muniyammal ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.172 of 2007 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioners : M/s. V.Thirumal For R1 : Mrs.S.Devasena Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) For R2 : M/s. P.Mariyal Baby O R D E R This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.172 of 2007 on the file of the first respondent. 2. Heard Mr.V.Thirumal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.S.Devasena, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State and M/s.P.Mariyal Baby appearing for the second respondent/de-facto complainant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the dispute in between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant was settled and they also filed a compromise memo. He would further submit that in view of the compromise the case registered against the petitioners need not be proceeded and the same may be quashed. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the compromise reached in between the parties may be verified and suitable orders may be passed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit in her argument that the dispute in between the petitioners and the second respondent is settled and a sale deed was also executed in favour of the second respondent in pursuance of the compromise and therefore the complaint given by her is withdrawn and therefore the case registered against the petitioners on the complaint may be quashed. 6. Perused the joint memorandum of compromise. Affidavit filed by the second respondent/de-facto complainant was affirmed by her in open Court. Both parties present before Court have admitted the compromise and it was recorded. 7. The arguments submitted on either side would also shows the dispute in between parties have vanished. Sale deed produced and perused. The compromise reached in between the parties have been completed by the execution of sale deed. The F.I.R. shows the offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w. 120(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. In view of the compromise, the F.I.R. in Crime No.172 of 2007 against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. If for any reason, the case is referred for further investigation no charge sheet could be filed on the F.I.R. and it will be a waste of time for the police and also the judicial time of the Court. Therefore, this Court has no impediment to quash the F.I.R. Accordingly, the F.I.R. in Crime No.172 of 2007 against this petitioners is quashed and this Petition is ordered. akv Sd/- Assistant Registrar[P&A] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nathampatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 cc to Mr.V.Thirumal, Advocate SR.No.8722. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.834 of 2011 Dated:14.02.2011 2P/4C RPB 08.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/