Allowed

Valli v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Feb 2015CRL OP(MD)/10684/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Having already obtained interim bail, the petitioner entered a compromise with the defacto complainant regarding land plot encumbrances. The mediation report confirmed the terms of settlement, leading the Court to make the interim bail absolute.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail already granted to the petitioner was made absolute.

Valli Vs the Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Wednesday, the Eighteenth day of February Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.10684 of 2014

¶6

VALLI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2

¶7

STATE REP BY

¶8

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTI LAND GRABBING UNIT (DCB), TRICHY, CRIME NO.20/2013 ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.G.RAVISHANKAR, Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN

¶10

Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/S.PERIYASAMY, Advocate M/S.BAGAVATH SINGH, Advocate for other intervenor

¶11

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and the learned Counsel for the intervenor.

¶14

This Court had granted interim bail to the petitioner by order dated 24.06.2014 and the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation centre. The petitioner and the defacto complainant Arumugam have entered into a compromise whereby the accused has agreed to clear the encumbrance created in Plot Nos.34 and 35. The Mediation and Conciliation centre has also sent a report dated 21.01.2015 wherein, it is stated as follows:

¶15

"The defacto complainant as well as the accused in the complaint have agreed as below.

¶16

The accused in the complaint have agreed to cancel the registration of Plot Nos.34 and 35 and return the same to the defacto complainant.(order on 09.12.2014)

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Accordingly the document for the amendment is also prepared and the photocopy is attached herewith.

¶18

Hence, the Honourable Court may pass an order for the execution of the said document to the concerned Magistrate.

¶19

On these terms the defacto complainant will withdraw his complaint filed by him before the respondent police, once the document is registered.

¶20

In view of the above, interim bail already granted by this

¶21

Court is made absolute.

¶22

sd/-

¶23

18/02/2015

¶24

/ TRUE COPY /

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶26

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶27

Madurai - 625 023.

¶28

¶29

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I TRICHY.

¶30

2.DO THE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY. 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTI LAND GRABBING UNIT (DCB), TRICHY, 5.THE OFFICER INCHARGE THE SPECIAL PRISON FOR WOMEN, TIRCHY.

¶31

RL/6 C- 24/2/2015

¶32

ORDER

¶33

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10684 of 2014 Date :18/02/2015

¶34

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

Valli v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valli 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Mariyaselvam Vs the Inspector of Police

Sumathi Vs the Inspector of Police

Naveen Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Rajangam Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthilkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Periyasamy Vs the Inspector of Police