Madras High Court
WP/398/2001 of UMA METAL INDUSTRIES Vs S/TN REP. BY REGISTRAR, on 21 November 2002
BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT %DATED: 07.03.2019 *CORAM THE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Relief
?BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT%DATED: 07.03.2019*CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE+Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3343 of 2019#1.Chellapandi2.Visu : Petitioners / Accused No.1 & 2
/Vs./$State through by1.The Inspector of Police,Sedapatti Police StationMadurai District. : 1st Respondent / Complainant[Cr.No.98 of 2018]
2.Muthupandi : 2nd Respondent / De factoComplainant3.Palkannan : 3rd Respondent / Victim PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. tocall for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.294 of 2016 on the fileof the learned District cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur and quash the same.!For Petitioners : Mr.R.Maheswaran^For R~1 : Mr.V.NeelakandenAdditional Public Prosecutor For R~2 & R~3 : Mr.Senthil Vinayagam
:ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedingsin C.C.No.294 of 2016 on the file of the learned District cum JudicialMagistrate, Peraiyur, for alleged offences under Sections 323, 324 and506(ii) IPC. The offences are private in nature.
2. The case is still in the stage of investigation. By passage oftime, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise thedispute amicably among themselves.
3. A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court whichhave been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also bytheir respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were alsopresent in person before this Court and they were identified by Ms.Maheswari,Sub~Inspector of Police, Sedapatti Police Station, Contact:94981 98157. ThisCourt also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties havecome to an amicable settlement between themselves.
4. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings pending, even though, the offences involved are notcompoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon-bleSupreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641~(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs.
State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section482 Cr.P.C. quashes the proceedings in C.C.No.294 of 2016 on the file of thelearned District cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur.
5. This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, theproceedings in C.C.No.294 of 2016 on the file of the learned District cumJudicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, is quashed and the terms of Joint Memo ofCompromise shall form part and parcel of this order. Each of the petitionersshall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/~ as costs, to the credit of the Chief JusticeRelief Fund (payable in Accounts Section of the High Court Registry, MaduraiBench), within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reportingcompliance in the Registry.
To
1. The learned District cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur.
2. The Inspector of Police,Sedapatti Police StationMadurai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.