Allowed

Prabhu v. State Rep by

Madras HC11 Mar 2015CRL OP/5966/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash an F.I.R. regarding offences under Section 376 IPC and the Tamil Nadu Protection of Women Harassment Act. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the F.I.R. considering the settlement reached through mediation where the victim admitted she did not wish to prosecute further.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First Information Report (F.I.R.) in Crime No. 19 of 2014 is quashed.

Prabhu Vs State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.03.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.5966 of 2015

¶6

1.Prabhu
2.P.S.Sridharan ... Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2
Vs.
1.State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
W.32, All Women Police Station,
Madipakkam
Chennai
Crime No.19 of 2014
2.D.Jayalakshmi ... 1st Respondents/Complainant
Prayer :

¶7

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records relating to Crime No.19/2014 on the file of respondent and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Saravanan
For Respondents: Mr.M.Maharaja for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.M.Shreedhar for R2
for M.Shreedhar and Associates

¶9

ORDER

¶10

On the complaint given by the second respondent, a case in Crime No.19 of 2014 was registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 376, 325, 506(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Women Harassment Act.

¶11

2.The petitioners have filed this criminal original petition to quash the F.I.R. Earlier the petitioners filed anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.247 of 2015 and in that proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation and in the mediation, the parties arrived at settlement. The second respondent also filed affidavit to that effect stating that she has agreed for a compromise taking into consideration her life and her future and also on the ground that the

¶12

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

¶13

petitioners agreed to return all the pictures and videos and pay money for the expenses incurred by her for medical and legal battle. She also expressed her intention not to proceed with the case, in view of the settlement arrived at mediation.

¶14

3.The second respondent is present in Court and she was enquired and she also admitted settlement arrived at in mediation and stated that she does not want to prosecute the case further.

¶15

4.Though a case was registered under Sections 376, 325, 506(ii) of I.P.C., having regard to the allegation made in the F.I.R., no offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. is made out and therefore considering the fact that the second respondent is also a major and she moved with the first petitioner on her own violation and stopped moving with her after she realizing that the first petitioner was already married, in my opinion no offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. is made out.

¶16

5.Therefore, considering the affidavit filed by the second
respondent and the fact that the parties have compromised the issue
and arrived at settlement in the mediation, this criminal original
petition is allowed and the F.I.R. is quashed.
pri
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
Dt:13/3/2015
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
W.32, All Women Police Station,
Madipakkam
Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.C.S.Saravanan, Advocate SR 13673
ad(co)
prk13/3
Crl.O.P.No.5966 of 2015

¶17

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

Prabhu v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu v. State Rep by

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

M.M.Rangasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Guruswamy Vs the Inspector of Police

S.v.Sriramalu Vs the Inspector of Police

J.Seenivasan@ Seenu Vs State Rep by

P.Subramaniam Vs State Rep by

Ananth Vs the Inspector of Police