When this Criminal Original Petition was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent, have filed a memo of compromise dated 21.03.2017, duly signed by the petitioner, second respondent and their respective counsel. The petitioner is the grandson of the second respondent. Due to some misunderstanding with regard to a family dispute, to give warning to the petitioner, the second respondent lodged the complaint. Now it is stated in the memo of compromise that the second respondent took efforts to compromise the matter and being the grandfather of the petitioner, he is not willing to proceed with the case any further and that he has no objection to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.994 of 2013 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, Chennai.
2. Both the parties are present. Their identities have been verified and they accepted the contents in the memo of compromise as true and genuine.
3. The memo of compromise is recorded and the same shall form part of this order. In view of the memo of compromise, the proceedings in C.C.No.994 of 2013 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, Chennai, against the petitioner, is quashed, and the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of in terms of the memo of compromise. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No 21.03.2017 Internet : Yes/No KM To
1. The Inspector of Police, S-12, Chitlapakkam Police Station, Chennai District – 600 064. (Crime No.1034 of 2013)
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai-600 104.
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
KM Crl.O.P.No.2828 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.2000 of 2017 21.03.2017