Allowed

Rajkumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Apr 2014CRL OP(MD)/4467/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of an FIR. The Court found no dispute between the petitioner and defacto complainant, who submitted a counter affidavit showing no interest in prosecuting the case, rendering it unnecessary to keep the petition pending.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; proceedings in Crime No. 750 of 2013 quashed.

Rajkumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.04.2014 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI CRL.O.P.(MD)No.4467 of 2014

¶4

1.Rajkumar

¶5

... Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Inspector of Police, Thilagarthidal (Crime) Police Station, Madurai. ... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶8

2.Arumugam ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶9

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.750 of 2013 on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Rafi For Respondent-1 : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondent-2 : Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This petition has been filed praying to call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.750 of 2013 on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶13

The 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant as well as the petitioner/ sole accused are present before this Court and they are identified by the respective learned counsel and both the parties have submitted that there is not dispute between them and to that effect the 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant has filed a counter affidavit, dated 26.03.2014.

¶14

The Court has also made an enquiry with the 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant, who would state that he is not interested in prosecuting the case.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

The Court has also heard the petitioner and the defacto

¶18

complainant and also the submission of the learned Government Advocate (crl.side).

¶19

In the light of the said counter affidavit, no purpose will be

¶20

served by keeping the Criminal Original Petition pending.

¶21

In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed the the proceeding in Crime No.750 of 2013, on the file of the 1^st respondent. is quashed. The counter affidavit filed the 2^nd respondent is recorded.

¶22

Sd/

¶23

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶24

/TRUE COPY/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The Inspector of Police, Thilagarthidal (Crime) Police Station, Madurai.

¶28

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

¶29

+1cc to Mr.M.Mohamed Rafi, Advocate SR.No.22803

¶30

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.4467 of 2014 09.04.2014

¶31

MPK

¶32

PA/08.05.2014/2P/4C

¶33

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

Rajkumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar 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

Seenivasan Vs the State Rep.by Its

Mr.P.Kannan, Vs M/S Ceaars Specialty Foods

Rajaram, Vs State Rep.by Inspector of

Raja Vs the Inspector of Police

B.Murugadoss Vs Chithra

M.S. Suresh Kumar Vs T.J. Kavitha