Dismissed

S.Surulirajan @ Suruli v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Dec 2013CRL OP(MD)/19631/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P under Section 482 CrPC filed to quash criminal proceedings. Court noted amicable settlement via a compromise memo dated 30.10.2013 and quashed proceedings against the petitioner alone.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of proceedings in Crime No.88 of 2013 pending on the file of the first respondent police, insofar as the petitioner/A1 alone is concerned.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.12.2013

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

Crl.O.P(MD)No.19631 of 2013

¶6

S.Surulirajan @ Suruli ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs.

¶7

1.State Represented by

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Chozhavandhan Police Station, Madurai.

¶9

2.Krishnaveni ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the F.I.R. in Crime No.88 of 2013 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For 1st Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

There are totally two accused in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A1 and has filed the present Criminal Original Petition for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.88 of 2013, registered by the first respondent police against the accused for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 294(b), 427, 506(ii) I.P.C., said to have taken place on 13.03.2012.

¶14

Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah, the learned counsel petitioner would submit that the matter in issue and the difference of opinion between the petitioner, A2 and the second respondent has been amicably resolved and also filed a Memo of Compromise dated 30.10.2013 to that effect.

¶15

The petitioner/accused No.1 as well as the second respondent/defacto complainant are present. They were identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court also made enquiries with both of them and they have stated that the matter in issue has been amicably resolved and a compromise memo dated 30.10.2013 has also been filed to that effect. Learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. side) was also heard.

¶16

In view of the said development, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.88 of 2013 pending on the file of the first respondent is quashed, insofar as the petitioner/A1 alone is concerned.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side)

¶19

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

¶20

Sub- Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

¶23

1.The Inspector of Police, Chozhavandhan Police Station, Madurai.

¶24

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

¶25

Copy to : The Section Officer, ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶26

(to keep the memo of compromise along with the order)

¶27

- 1 CC to Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah, Advocate in SR.No.61832

¶28

¶29

Crl.O.P(MD)No.19631 of 2013 10.12.2013 gdr 03.01.2014 2p/5C

¶30

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

S.Surulirajan @ Suruli v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Surulirajan @ Suruli 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

Gnanam Vs the Inspector of Police

Paulraj @ Paulpandi Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohammed Lmithias Vs the Inspector of Police

Palanisamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Pushpam Vs Manimegalai

John Muthiah Vs the Sub - Inspector of Police