Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 183 (MAD)

Gooday Osagbogo v. State

2014-01-27

G.CHOCKALINGAM

body2014
Judgment : The present petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2 to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.38 of 2013 on the file of the 1st respondent police, registered for the offences under sections 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act, 2008 and 406, 419 & 420 IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the 1st respondent as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for both parties represented that the petitioners and the second respondent/de-facto complainant have amicably settled the issue between them and the de-facto complainant has agreed to give up the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/A1 and A2 and the de-facto complainant is no longer willing to pursue the criminal proceedings against the accused persons. 4. When the matter came up for hearing on 24.01.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second respondent/de-facto complainant along with his counsel are present. When this court enquired the second respondent/de-facto complainant about the factum of the compromise and terms of the compromise, he admitted the same and he has also categorically submitted that he is not interested in continuing the criminal prosecution against the petitioners/A1 and A2, due to compromise arrived at between them. The second respondent/de-facto complainant also filed an affidavit to that effect. 5. It is now well settled that the proceedings can be quashed in appropriate cases on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Here is the case wherein the de-facto complainant in his own interest and on his own free will thought fit to compromise the matter with the petitioners/A1 and A2. That being so, this court is of the considered view that the de-facto complainant is not likely to support the prosecution case at later point of time during trial in respect of petitioners/A1 and A2. In that event, it is not going to help anyone by keeping the case on file and it would be only a futile exercise and it would be sheer waste of the time of the court. Hence, in order to maintain the present state of affairs, which is according to the parties more beneficial to then, this Court is of the considered view that F.I.R. in Crime No. 38 of 2013 is liable to be quashed in respect of the petitioners/A1 and A2. 6. Hence, in order to maintain the present state of affairs, which is according to the parties more beneficial to then, this Court is of the considered view that F.I.R. in Crime No. 38 of 2013 is liable to be quashed in respect of the petitioners/A1 and A2. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed by quashing the F.I.R. in crime No. 38 of 2013 on the file of the 1st respondent against the petitioners/A1 and A2. The petitioners/A1 and A2 are directed to be released forthwith, if not required their detention in any other case. The compromise memos as well as the affidavit filed by the second respondent/de-facto complainant shall form part of the record.