Allowed

Prabhakaran v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC11 Nov 2013CRL OP(MD)/14095/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed the F.I.R under Section 482 CrPC. The court allowed the petition as the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, who are now husband and wife, had entered into a compromise after the alleged offences. The court noted the willingness of the complainant to withdraw the complaint.

What did the court decide?

The F.I.R registered in Crime No.1106 of 2012 was quashed.

Prabhakaran Vs the Superintendent of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.11.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14095 of 2013

¶3

Prabhakaran

¶4

vs.

¶5

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.

¶6

2.State represented by The Inspector of Police, S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai.

¶7

(In Crime No.1106 of 2012

¶8

3.Gurusamy : Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.1106 of 2012 on the file of the second respondent.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate For R-3 : Mr.Sheik Hussain

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner seeks to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.1106 of 2012 on the file of the second respondent.

¶13

2. Upon the daughter of the de-facto complainant having gone missing, a complaint has been preferred and the case was registered for offence under Section 366(A) of I.P.C. Subsequently, the same was altered to inform the commission of offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. Presently, compromise has been effected and the petitioner/accused and the girl, who allegedly went missing are now husband and wife and parents of an infant boy. The petitioner and the de-facto complainant have entered into a compromise and the de-facto complainant wishes to withdraw his complaint and expresses his unwillingness to further prosecute the case.

¶14

3.The petitioner, de-facto complainant as also their respective counsel are before this Court and inform that compromise entered between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant. The joint memo of compromise signed by the petitioner, the de-facto complainant as also their respective counsel is filed before this Court and the same is recorded.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that pursuant to compromise, the case registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed and accordingly the F.I.R registered against the petitioner in

¶16

¶17

Crime No.1106 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The compromise memo shall form part of the record.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶20

Encl:

¶21

Xerox copies of Compromise Memo

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.

¶26

2.State represented by The Inspector of Police, S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai.

¶27

3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.

¶28

¶29

AA/20.11.2013/2p-4c/

¶30

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14095 of 2013 Dated:- 11.11.2013

¶31

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

Prabhakaran v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakaran v. the Superintendent 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

Vincent Vs the Inspector of Police

Shanmugavel Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Chakaravarthi Vs the Inspector of Police

Ganesh Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Tamil Selvi Vs the Inspector of [P;Oce

A.Edward Vs the Inspector of Police