Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1837 (MAD)

Seenivasan v. State, represented by its The Inspector of Police

2017-07-03

S.S.SUNDAR

body2017
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying this Court to call for the records in crime No.98 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent Police and to quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent/Police and perused the materials placed before the Court including the Joint Compromise memo signed by both the parties. 3. It is seen from the records that the offences in which the criminal case was registered are compoundable. The parties have entered into a compromise and the identity of persons who have entered into compromise are not in dispute and they are present in Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent filed a memo of compromise stating that since the matter has been compromised, the second respondent agreed to withdraw the above said case in Crime No.98 of 2017, pending on the file of the first respondent/Police. 4. Considering the nature of allegation and also considering the memo of compromise, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. Therefore, recording the joint compromise memo, the entire proceedings in Crime No.98 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent/Police in respect of the petitioners alone, is, hereby, quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed accordingly. The joint compromise memo shall form part of the order of this Court.