Allowed

Thulasiraman v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Aug 2013CRL OP(MD)/11685/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honourable Ms. Justice R. Mala allowed the Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court quashed Crime No. 438 of 2013 registered for offences under Sections 109, 120(B), 408 and 380 IPC, noting that a compromise had been entered into between the petitioners and the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No. 438 of 2013 is quashed pursuant to the filed compromise memo between the petitioners and the complainant.

Thulasiraman Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.08.2013

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Criminal Original Petition(MD) No.11685 of 2013

1.Thulasiraman

2.Selvakumar

3.Manikandan

...Petitioners/Accused No.1-3

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.State rep. By The Inspector of Police, C3 SS colony Police Station, Madurai District.CR.No. 438 of 2013

¶12

2.M.Senthilkumar .. Respondents/Complaiant

¶13

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records from the 1^st respondent in connection with the Crime No.438 of 2013 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sathishbabu

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy

¶16

Government Advocate (Crl.Side). For R1

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This criminal original petition is filed to quash the Crime No.438 of 2013 on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶19

It is a case of the petitioners that on the complaint given by the second respondent against them, a case in Crime No.438 of 2013 has been registered for offences under Sections 109, 120(b), 408 and 380 IPC.

¶20

When the matter is posted today, all the three petitioners as well as the second respondent/de-facto complainant are present before this Court.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners as well as the second respondent have entered into a compromise and a compromise memo has been filed.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side).

¶24

Since the dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent is settled and recording the memo of compromise filed by them and after verifying the identity of the petitioners as well as the second

¶25

¶26

respondent, I am inclined to quash the case in Crime No.438 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent police. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is allowed and Crime No.438 of 2013 is quashed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

1.The Inspector of Police,

¶33

C3 SS colony Police Station,

¶34

Madurai District.

¶35

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

¶36

Madurai.

¶37

+1cc to MR.N.Sathish Babu Advocate SR.No. 41244.

¶38

TS/05.09.2013/2P-4C

¶39

Criminal Original Petition(MD) No.11685 of 2013

¶40

20.08.2013

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Thulasiraman v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thulasiraman v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jothi Pandi Vs the Inspector of Police

Abdul Razack Vs the Inspector of Police

Kavitha Vs the Inspector of Police

Shanmugasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Vairavaselvam Vs the Inspector of Police

Makesh Vs the Inspector of Police