Allowed

Kakani Govardharan Reddy v. the Station House Officer

Madras HC23 Jul 2015CRL OP/8700/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a bail application filed by a taxpayer who alleged that the tax department failed to issue a notice under Section 143(1)(B) r/w Section 143(1)(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and instead relied on Section 143(1)(a). The court held that no jurisdictional error had been committed by the Assessing Officer.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; FIR quashed.

Kakani Govardharan Reddy Vs the Station… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.07.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.8700 OF 2014

¶6

Kakani Govardhan Reddy ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Station House Officer, Reddiyarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry. 2. Dr.B.V.A.Ranga Reddy ... Respondents

¶7

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the FIR in Cr.No.10 of 2014 (pending investigation), on the file of the Station House Officer, Reddiyarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Purushothaman For Respondent : Mr.M.R.Thangavel, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Pondy) For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.T.K.Rajesh O R D E R

¶8

It is seen that on a complaint lodged by one Dr.B.V.A.Ranga Reddy, the 1^st respondent-Police registered a case in Cr.No.10 of 2014, on 21.01.2014, for the offences, under Sections 448, 323, 394, 506(II) IPC., r/w. 34 IPC., against three persons, including the petitioner herein. The petitioner/Accused No.1, is the father-in-law of the defacto complainant, Dr.B.V.A.Ranga Reddy. The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner and two others, had snatched a chain, owned by the defacto complainant and a Car in his possession.

¶9

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

¶10

It is further seen that petitioner's daughter, Mrs.Poojitha, who was married to the defacto complainant, had matrimonial problems and on account of which, the alleged incident had taken place. Now, it is seen that the parties have arrived at a compromise, under which, the marriage between the defacto complainant and Mrs.Poojitha, has been dissolved, by a decree of divorce, dated 02.05.2015, in O.P.No.724 of 2015, on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad. Pursuant to the compromise arrived at, between the parties, a Memorandum of Compromise has been filed before the Family Court, Hyderabad, wherein, at Paragraph 5, it is settled as follows:

¶11

“5. Both the parties agreed to dissolve their marriage, as per the terms of Memo of Compromise. Petitioner and respondent have mutually agreed that the cases filed and pending, including criminal case registered under Crime No.10/2014, on 21.01.2014, under Sections 448, 323, 394, 506(I) IPC., and any other filed against each other shall be withdrawn by them and that in future, there will be no claims whatsoever in any manner either by the parties to this deed or by any other claiming on their behalf. All the claims between the parties stand discharged on signing of this memorandum of compromise.”

¶12

An affidavit sworn to, by the defacto complainant, has been filed before this Court, in which, it is stated as follows:

¶13

“9. I submit that now both the parties have come to an amicable settlement with a view to the future life of both, we are at the tender age pursuing the complaint would cause irreparable loss to me.

¶14

I submit that we are willing to compromise the issue since the dispute between both the parties has been amicably settled out of the Court.

¶15

I submit that in the interest of Justice pursuing the complaint would be unfair and unjustifiable to the justice.

¶16

I submit that in the view of compromise arose between us, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit me to file this affidavit and considering this the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in Cr.No.10 of 2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Station House Officer, Reddiyarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry.”

¶17

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

¶18

In view of the compromise arrived at, between the parties, the entire FIR, against all the accused, in Cr.No.10 of 2014, on the file of the 1^st respondent, is hereby quashed. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar

¶20

/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
The Station House Officer,
Reddiyarpalayam Police Station,
Puducherry.
+1cc to M/s V. Purushothaman Advocate SR 37657
Crl.O.P.No.8700 of 2014
PPA (CO)
Rs / 11.08.2015

¶21

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

Kakani Govardharan Reddy v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kakani Govardharan Reddy v. the Station House Officer

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.Rajkumar Vs T.Rajkumar

Mr.Vasantha Kumar Vs the State Rep by

S.Sngaravelu Vs State Rep. by

P.S.Raghunathan Vs P.Thilagamani

Jayanthi Vs the Inspector of Police

Mr.H.Ramesh Vs the Inspector of Police