1. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2016 under Sections 447, 465, 468
and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and another, to quash which, both parties are present before this Court on the ground that
they have arrived at the compromise.
2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.K.Anandan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell (CCB),
Madurai City, is present. Both parties are also present before this Court and their identifications were verified by this Court, in addition to the
confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) through Mr.K.Anandan, Special Sub-Inspector of
Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell (CCB), Madurai City. The defacto complainant is accompanied by her daughter Mrs.Stella W/o.Arockia
John Peter.
3. The petitioners and the second respondent have filed a joint compromise memo dated 16.03.2017, wherein, they have stated as follows:
2.The petitioners and the 2nd Respondent further submit that during the pendency of the proceedings, at the intervention of the
elders, both the parties have sat together, in which an amicable conclusion has been arrived at and as one part of a conclusion, the
2nd Respondent had agreed to say no objection for the purpose of quashing the present criminal proceeding and a Memorandum of
Understanding was executed between them on 29.04.2016 and the Petitioner also complied with the terms mentioned in the
Memorandum of Understanding.
3.The Petitioners as well as the 2nd Respondent jointly submits that such compromise has been taken place purely with an intention
to settle all the issues among them and it is purely voluntary by the parties concerned. Hence, in order to avoid further ordeal of trial
before the Trial Court, they are preferred to be present before this Hon''ble Court, whenever it is required. This Hon''ble Court by
taking into consideration of the above said aspects with regard to the compromise and in the interest of the parties, can leniently look
into the present issue, as such the prayer sought for by the Petitioner can be allowed.
4. Though A1 to A4 have filed this quash application, F.I.R. has been registered against 5 accused. The defacto complainant and her daughter
stated that they have no objection for the F.I.R. being quashed as against Avudaiyammal (A5) also, who is not a petitioner before us. Their
submissions are recorded.
5. In view of the joint memo of compromise dated 16.03.2017, and the submissions made by the defacto complainant and her daughter, this Court
is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties and the entire
proceedings in Crime No.4 of 2016, on the file of the 1st respondent are hereby quashed on condition that the petitioners shall pay a sum of
Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each (Totally Rs.500/- x 4 = Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as cost to Mahatma Gandhi
Museum, Madurai, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a memo in the Registry. The joint
compromise memo dated 16.03.2017 shall form part of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
