Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 353 (MAD)

Chinnadurai v. State

2014-02-14

P.DEVADASS

body2014
Judgment Petitioners, namely, Chinnadurai and Ramasamy, who are A2 and A1 in C.C.No.72 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet, filed this petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings. 2. A-2 Chinnadurai and defacto complainant Sivakumar are Advocates practising in Udumalpet. One Thangavel had a civil case. A-2 appeared for him, while the defacto complainant appeared against him. In this connection, Sivakumar complained as against Advocate Chinnadurai(A1) and his Clerk Ramasamy(A2). The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet directed investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the first respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station filed final report before the said Magistrate as against the petitioners. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance thereon for offences under Sections 465, 469 and 471 IPC as against A1, while under Sections 465 r/w 34, 469 r/w 109 r/w 34, 471 r/w 109 r/w 34 IPC as against A-2. The summons were issued to the accused. Setting out certain reasons, they came forward with this petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings. 3. The defacto complainant, Sivakumar filed CMP.No.2755 of 2009 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No-1, Udumalpet for sending the disputed telegram to forensic expert's opinion. It was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. As against that Sivakumar preferred Crl.R.C.No.204 of 2010. 4. It is pertinent to note that both Chinnadurai and Sivakumar are members of legal fraternity. Now, there is compromise between both. Sivakumar is not interested in prosecuting the case. He intends to withdraw the case itself so that both the Advocates shall concentrate on their practice forgetting the past. Naturally, the Advocate clerk Ramasamy(A1) will also have the benefit of it. 5. The defacto complainant Advocate Sivakumar filed a memo of compromise in both the matters. It has been signed by him and also by Advocate Chinnadurai. They runs as under:- MEMO OF COMPROMISE Crl.O.P.No.18225 of 2009 It is humbly submit that the above said case the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent are Advocates and both of them are practising the same bar. Hence the 2nd respondent mutually agreed to withdraw the case against the 1st and 2nd petitioners. Hence, the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner pleased to pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass suitable orders and thus render justice. Hence the 2nd respondent mutually agreed to withdraw the case against the 1st and 2nd petitioners. Hence, the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner pleased to pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass suitable orders and thus render justice. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2nd respondent) (1st petitioner) (M. Sivakumar) (Chinnadurai) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (counsel for the (Counsel for the 2nd respondent) 1 & 2 petitioners) MEMO OF COMPROMISE Crl.R.C.No.204 of 2010 It is humbly submit that the above said case the 1st petitioner and the 3nd respondent are Advocates and both of them are practising the same bar. Hence the petitioner mutually agreed to withdraw the case against the 2nd and 3rd respondents. Hence, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent pleased to pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass suitable orders and thus render justice. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Petitioner) (3rd respondent) (M. Sivakumar) (Chinnadurai) 6. It is clear that the matter has been amicably settled between both sides and the defacto complainant is not interested in pursuing the case further. 7. The offences alleged are under Sections 465, 469, 471 IPC. They are non-compoundable offences. 8. Commencing from B.S.JOSHI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [2003 SCC (Crl.) 484], and in the three Judge Bench Judgments in GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [2012 (12)L.W.(Crl.) 797] and JITENDRA RAGHUVANSHI AND OTHERS Vs. BASITA RAGHUVANSHI AND OTHERS [2013 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 284], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the offences complained are non-compoundable offences and parties have amicably settled the matter continuance of criminal proceedings becomes a futile exercise and in such circumstances, the High Courts in exercise of their inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C., can quash those criminal proceedings. 9. The principle laid down in the said decisions squarely applies to the present case. 10. Now, there is 'no victor or vanquished'. Out come is emergence of smooth relationship between both. In this regard, this Court records its appreciation for the sincere and effective initiative taken by both side counsels for reaching an happy conclusion. 11. In view of the foregoings, the entire criminal proceedings in CC.No.72 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Udumalpet is quashed. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Inasmuch as the calendar case itself is gone, the Criminal Revision Case No.204 of 2010 must also go. 11. In view of the foregoings, the entire criminal proceedings in CC.No.72 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Udumalpet is quashed. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Inasmuch as the calendar case itself is gone, the Criminal Revision Case No.204 of 2010 must also go. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition stand dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.