Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Prasanth Kumar vs State Represented By

Madras High Court|13 November, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.96 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II Virudhunagar District and to quash the same.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3.The petitioners are accused No.1 to 4 in C.C.No.96 of 2015. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case was registered as against the petitioners in Crime No.15 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A),294(b) and 506(i) IPC by the first respondent police. After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file in C.C.No.96 of 2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar District.
4.It appears that the parties have settled their dispute amicably out of Court and they have also entered into a compromise, on the advise of elders and their family members. A Joint Compromise Memo, signed by both parties, in the presence of their respective counsel, is also produced before this Court. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent, has agreed to compromise the matter and no objection for quashing the entire proceedings in C.C.No.96 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar District.
5.The parties namely, the petitioner and the second respondent appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed the Joint Compromise Memo on their own free will and volition. The identity of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identity of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor through the first respondent police.
6.Having regard to the specific terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.96 of 2015, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar District, is quashed in toto. The Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.
7.Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar District.
.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Prasanth Kumar vs State Represented By

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
13 November, 2017