Allowed

H.Bismi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Nov 2013CRL OP(MD)/14803/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court quashed charge sheets under Sections 341, 323, and 506(ii) IPC in a criminal proceeding involving the petitioner, relying on the principle laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) due to a filed memorandum of compromise between the parties.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings in C.C.No.173 of 2011 in respect of the petitioner shall stand quashed.

H.Bismi Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.11.2013

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶4

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14803 of 2013

¶5

H.Bismi

¶6

... Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.State through The Inspector of Police, Vilakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.A.Sulthan Alavudheen ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to charge sheet in C.C.No.173 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.C.M.Arumugam For Respondent 1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondent 2 : Mr.R.Pandi Maharaja for Perfect Law Associates for R-2

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This petition seeks to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.173 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai so far as these petitioners/accused are concerned.

¶13

2.The petitioner is facing prosecution for offence under Sections 341, 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C, in C.C.No.173 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

¶14

Presently a memorandum of compromise entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent/de-facto complainant stands filed informing that they are neighbours and are enjoying a cordial relationship, which they wish to maintain. The memo of compromise filed before this court has been signed both by all the petitioner and the second respondent as also their https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respective counsel.

¶15

¶16

Following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court allows this petition. Accordingly, all proceedings in C.C.No.104 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai in respect of these petitioner shall stand quashed.

¶17

This petition is ordered accordingly. The memo of compromise shall form part of the records.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar /True copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

¶23

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,Madurai.

¶24

2.Do thro' The chief Judicial Magistrate,Madurai.

¶25

3.The Inspector of Police, Vilakkuthoon Police Station,Madurai.

¶26

4.The Public Prosecutor

¶27

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.

¶28

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14803 of 2013 18.11.2013

¶29

rg.26.11.2013 2p/5c

¶30

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

H.Bismi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Bismi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saravanan Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

P. Vetrivel Vs the Inspector of Police

Nehru Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Sahul Hameed Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Raja @ Raja Mohamed Vs the Inspector of Police

Chandrasekaran Vs the Inspector of Police