Allowed

M.Lakshmi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Dec 2013CRL OP(MD)/2335/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in S.C.No.125 of 2012 based on a joint compromise memo executed between the de facto complainant and petitioners 1 to 6.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C.No.125 of 2012 pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Devakottai, quashed in respect of petitioners 1 to 6; connected M.Ps. closed.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.12.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2335 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2 and 3 of 2011

¶7

1.M.Lakshmi 2.S.Ramanathan 3.K.Illayaraja 4.S.Balu 5.P.Azhagar 6.M.Sekar 7.K.Beer Mohamed

¶8

... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 7

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The State By The Inspector of Police, Sakkottai Police Station, Sivagangai District. 2.R.Rakki

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in respect of *S.C.No.125 of 2012 on the file of Sub Court, Devakottai and to quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Venkatesh

¶14

For 1st Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate

¶15

For 2nd Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 7 in *S.C.No.125 of 2012, pending on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Devakottai and they are facing prosecution for the alleged commission of offences under Section 394 I.P.C. altered into Sections 120-B, 397 r/w 149 I.P.C.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that accused Nos.2 to 6 are related to the first petitioner, who is daughter in law of the defacto complainant and the matter in issue/dispute has already been resolved and the defacto complainant no longer interested in prosecuting the case.

¶19

This Court also heard the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent.

¶20

The petitioners 1 to 6 are present they were also identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent/defacto

¶21

¶22

complainant. The defacto complainant is also identified by the learned counsel for the second respondent. This Court made enquiry with the second respondent as well as the petitioners 1 to 6. They would state that the matter has been amicably resolved.

¶23

This Court has also perused the joint comprise memo as well as the

¶24

affidavit of the defacto complainant dated 16.08.2013, filed in support of the said joint memo.

¶25

In view of the subsequent development viz., Joint Compromise entered into between the defacto complainant and the petitioners 1 to 6/accused No.1 to 6, no purpose will be achieved in keeping the proceedings in *S.C.No.125 of 2012 pending.

¶26

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in *S.C.No.125 of 2012 pending on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Devakottai, is quashed in respect of petitioners 1 to 6/appellants 1 to 6 alone are concerned. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar

¶29

*Amended vide order of this Court dated 19.02.2014 in MP(MD).No.1 of 2014 /True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

To (To be Sustituted to the order already despatched on 07.01.2014)

¶32

1.The Sub Judge, Devakottai.

¶33

2.The Inspector of Police, Sakkottai Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶34

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

¶35

+1cc to Mr.D.Venkatesh Advocate in SR.No. 61886.

¶36

TS/07.01.2014/2P-5C AA/10.03.2014/2p-5c(Amended Order)

¶37

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2335 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2011

¶38

11.12.2013

¶39

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

M.Lakshmi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Lakshmi 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

Palanisamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Pushpam Vs Manimegalai

John Muthiah Vs the Sub - Inspector of Police

Tamilselvan Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Umar Vs the Commissioner of Police

Kani Vs the Inspector of Police