Allowed

M.H.Shahul Hameed v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC5 Jun 2015CRL OP/11186/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Original Petition, the Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 381 and 506 IPC. The court allowed the petition relying on a Supreme Court precedent, noting that the accused and the complainant had amicably settled all issues via a Memorandum of Understanding for Rs. 10 lakhs and recorded the settlement before the District Munsif Court.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed and proceedings in Crime No.152 of 2015 quashed vis-a-vis all accused.

M.H.Shahul Hameed Vs the State Rep. by — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 05.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL.OP.No.11186 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

1.M.H.Shahul Hameed 2.M.H.Mohamed Arif 3.M.H.Jainudeen ... Petitioners/A1 to A3 Vs

¶7

1.The State, rep by Inspector of Police, B-13, Podanur Police Station,

¶8

Coimbatore. ...Ist Respondent/Complainant (Cr.NO.152/2015)

¶9

2.S.Nowsad ... 2^nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

¶10

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying for a direction to call for the records relating to Crime No.152 of 2015, on the file of the Inspector of Police, B-13, Podanur Police Station, Coimbatore and to quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Anandhamurthy For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias,

¶12

Addl. Public Prosecutor [for R1] Mr.D.Gopal [for R2],

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying for a direction to call for the records relating to Crime No.152 of 2015, on the file of the Inspector of Police, B-13, Podanur Police Station, Coimbatore and to quash the same.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

¶15

On a complaint lodged by one Nowsad, the respondent police initially conducted a petition enquiry in CSR.No.57 of 2015. While the petition enquiry was pending, on a petition filed by Nowsad in Crl.O.P.No.7692 of 2015, this Court issued direction to the respondent police to register a case, pursuant to which, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.152 of 2015 on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12.04.2015 for the offences under Sections 381, 506[i] IPC against

¶16

seven persons.

¶17

Now, the present application has been filed by three accused contending that the accused have amicably settled all the issues with the defacto complainant and they have also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 18.04.2015. Mr.D.Gopal, learned counsel [enrolment No.2920/2008] appears for Nowsad the defacto complainant and he has filed an affidavit sworned by Nowsad, wherein in paragraph No.4, it is stated as follows:

¶18

“Meanwhile, the elders in jamath, the well wishers, and friends intervened in the matter and advised both me and the 1^st petitioner to go for an amicable settlement and to put an end to the longstanding disputes. The petitioners also approached me for settlement and as such, both myself and the 1^st petitioner have decided to go for an amicable settlement in the presence of elders in jamath and well wishers. We have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 18.04.2015. Accordingly, the 1^st petitioner agreed to pay and paid Rs.10lakhs to me towards full and final settlement. We have also recorded the settlement before the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore in the respective suits by filing necessary petitions and memos. Therefore we have amicably settled all the issues and disputes between me and the petitioners. Though the Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between me and the 1^st petitioner, the other petitioners 2 & 3 and their staffs are not involved in any issues and disputes between me and the 1^st petitioner. In view of such supervening circumstances, I am not interested in proceeding the criminal case further and I have decided to put an end to all and entire proceedings. The Memorandum of Understanding may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.”

¶19

A copy of the affidavit has also been given to the respondent police.

¶20

In view of the settlement entered into between the parties, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another reported in [2014] 6 SCC 466, the entire proceedings in Crime No.152 of 2015 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, B-13, Podanur Police Station is hereby quashed with regard to all the accused in the FIR including the accused who has not approached this Court and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar

¶23

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

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

gya

¶26

¶27

1.The Inspector of Police, B-13, Podanur Police Station, Coimbatore.

¶28

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶29

1 cc to Mr. D.Gopal, Advocate Sr.No.26943 CRL.OP.No.11186 of 2015 bvr(co) pmk.16.5.2015

¶30

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

M.H.Shahul Hameed v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.H.Shahul Hameed v. the State Rep. by

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

N.Pandurangan Vs State by

Vinay Jain Vs the Inspector

Sathiyaraj, 35 Years Vs the Inspector of Police

Venkatesan Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Naresh Kumar Vs the State Rep. by

Dhanalakshmi Vs