Allowed

Raja v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Apr 2014CRL OP(MD)/5448/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashment of an FIR under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 307 IPC. Accepting a compromise memo and relying on Gian Singh, the court held no purpose was served by pending the petition and quashed proceedings against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed; proceedings in Crime No.83 of 2012 are quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

Raja 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

¶4

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5448 of 2014 and

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

1.Raja

2.Manikandan

3.Chandrasekar

... Petitioners / Accused 1 to 3

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

1.State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Masarpatti Police Station, Tuticorin District. ... Respondent/Complainant (Crime No.83 of 2012)

¶12

2.Periyasamy ... Respondent/Defacto Respondent

¶13

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.83 of 2012 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Subash Babu For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Govt.Advocate (crl.side) Mr.R.Maheswaran for R-2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.83 of 2012 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶17

It is a case of the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 of IPC., alleging assault and causing serious injuries on the defacto complainant and his brother, by the petitioners.

¶18

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though it is a case involving the offence under Section 307 I.P.C, there is no material evidence. He also submitted that except the heinous offences, all the offences may be compromised.

¶19

The 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant as well as the petitioners/accused are present before this Court and they are identified by the respective learned counsel and both the parties have filed a compromise memo dated 28/02/2014 stating that the matter in issue between them has been amicably resolved and therefore, the 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant is not willing to prosecute the case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

prosecuting the case. The Court has also heard the submission of the learned Government Advocate (crl.side).

¶23

6.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶24

submitted that by following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, this petition may be allowed.

¶25

7.Since the parties are close relatives facilitating the peaceful

¶26

life and by following the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Gian Singh's case , this Court is inclined to accept the plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also taking into consideration of the materials, this Court is of the view that no purpose will be served by keeping the Criminal Original Petition pending.

¶27

8.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed the proceedings in Crime No.83 of 2012 on the file of the 1^st respondent, is quashed insofar as the petitioners in this petition are concerned. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶29

/TRUE COPY/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

1.The Inspector of Police,

¶33

Masarpatti Police Station,

¶34

Tuticorin District.

¶35

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor

¶36

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.Subash Babu, Advocate SR.No.22148

¶38

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5448 of 2014

09.04.2014

PA/13.05.2014/2P/4C

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

Raja v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja 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

Seenivasan Vs the State Rep.by Its

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

Rajaram, Vs State Rep.by Inspector of

Rajkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

B.Murugadoss Vs Chithra

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