Allowed

S. Karthigaiselvan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC4 Dec 2013CRL OP(MD)/15495/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR proceedings. The court recorded satisfaction that the dispute between the second accused and the complainant was settled amicably via a joint compromise memo.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; proceedings in Crime No.65 of 2013 quashed as far as the petitioner/second accused alone is concerned.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.12.2013

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

Criminal Original Petition (MD) No.15495 of 2013

¶6

and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013

¶7

S.Karthigaiselvan ... Petitioner Vs

¶8

1.State, rep.by The Inspector of Police Villur Police Station Madurai District (Crime No.65 of 2013)

¶9

2.A.Jeyakumar Kannan ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: This petition is preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records pertaining to the first information report in Crime No.65 of 2013, on the file of the first respondent Police and to quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Pandiyarajan For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy G.A.(Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.K.Prabhakaran for R2

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The second accused in Crime No.65 of 2013, on the file of the first respondent Police has filed this criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in Crime No.65 of 2013.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A2 would submit that the dispute arose between the petitioner/A2 and the second respondent/de facto complainant has been settled amicably and to that effect they have also filed a joint memo of compromise dated 27.11.2013 and hence prayed for quashment of the said FIR.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/second accused, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/de facto complainant and the learned counsel for the second respondent/de facto complainant would submit that the dispute arose between the petitioner and the de facto complainant has been settled amicably and hence this criminal original petition may be allowed and consequently the proceedings in Crime No.65 of 2013 may be quashed.

¶16

The petitioner/second accused as well as the second respondent/de facto complainant are present and they were identified by their respective learned counsels and they were also enquired and both of them agreed that the dispute arose between them, has been settled https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amicably.

¶17

¶18

The joint memo of compromise dated 27.11.2013 is taken on file and placed it on record.

¶19

In the light of the same, this criminal original petition is

¶20

allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.65 of 2013, on the file of the first respondent Police, so far as the petitioner/second accused alone is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶23

/TRUE COPY/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The Inspector of Police Villur Police Station Madurai District.

¶27

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶28

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15495 of 2013 04.12.2013

¶29

krk

¶30

PA/12.12.2013/2P/3C

¶31

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

S. Karthigaiselvan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Karthigaiselvan 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

M.Prem Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Manimaran Vs the Inspector of Police

R. Jeyakumar Vs J. Durga Devi

Adaikalaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Lakshmanan Vs the Inspector of Police

Lakshmanan Vs the Inspector of Police