Allowed

P.Mani, S/O.Palanigounder, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Jun 2015CRL OP/6421/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras quashed the charge sheet in a criminal case invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. held that an amicable settlement with the complainant and withdrawal of the complaint justified quashing the criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet in C.C.No.350 of 2011 is quashed on account of the compromise and withdrawal of complaint.

P.Mani, S/O.Palanigounder, Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.6421 of 2015

¶6

P.Mani
2. S.Santhi
3. M.Prakash
4. R.Daniel ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
City Crime Branch,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore.
2. Tmt.K.Malathi ... Respondents

¶7

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.350 of 2011, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh For 1^st Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶9

For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.V.Anandan

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The present criminal original petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.350 of 2011, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore.

¶12

On a complaint, given by Tmt.K.Malathi, 2^nd respondent herein, the 1^st respondent-Police registered a case in Cr.No.78 of 2009, under Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420 IPC., against the petitioners. After completing the investigation, the respondentPolice filed a final report, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore, against which, the petitioners have filed this Criminal Original petition, to quash the same, on the ground that they have entered into an amicable settlement with Tmt.K.Malathi, defacto complainant.

¶13

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

¶14

Today, Tmt.K.Malathi, defacto complainant, is present in the Court, along with her counsel, Mr.D.Anandan and has filed an affidavit, wherein, she has stated as follows:

¶15

“I state that the accused persons have entered into a compromise and accordingly, a Memorandum of compromise, dated 02.02.2015, was entered between myself and the abovesaid accused, P.Mani and others and as per the compromise, I received a sum of amount Rs.10,00,000/towards the consideration of the above said property and towards compensation for the loss sustained by me. I state that I also agreed to withdraw the criminal complaint pending in C.C.No.350 of 2011, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Coimbatore, against the accused persons.”

¶16

Tmt.K.Malathi, has been identified, by her counsel, Mr.V.Anandan.

¶17

In view of the settlement arrived at, between the parties, charge sheet in C.C.No.350 of 2011, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore, is thereby quashed, following the decision made in Narinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another reported in 2014 (6) SCC 466.

¶18

Hence, this criminal original petition is allowed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
skm
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Coimbatore.
2. The Inspector of Police,
City Crime Branch,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore.
1 cc to Mr.N. Anand Venkatesh, Advocate Sr.30437
Crl.O.P.No.6421 of 2015
ALA(CO)
EU 02.07.15

¶19

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

P.Mani, S/O.Palanigounder, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Mani, S/O.Palanigounder, 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

D.Venkatachalpathy Vs the Commissioner of Police

P.Devarajan Vs State Rep. by

N.Sanjeevi Vs G.Sudha

P.Thanga Thirupathi Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohammed Rafeeq Vs State Rep. by

Tony @ Dhoni, Aged 32 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police