Quashed

Senthilkumaran v. the Deputy Superintendent

Madras HC22 Jul 2015CRL OP(MD)/11626/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, quashed a Charge Sheet in a criminal proceeding alleging offences under IPC and SC/ST Amendment Act. The court found that the matter had been fully compromised and a formal memo was filed, making it unnecessary to pursue the case further.

What did the court decide?

The Charge Sheet in P.R.C.No.122 of 2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil is quashed.

Senthilkumaran Vs the Deputy Superintendent — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.07.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11626 of 2015

¶7

1.Senthilkumaran

¶8

2.Ganeshkumar

¶9

3.Subramanian

¶10

4.Palanivel

¶11

5.Sundarraj

¶12

6.Sankaravel ... Petitioners/A1 to A6

¶13

Vs.

¶14

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

¶15

2.The State rep. By The Special Sub Inspector of Police, Karuvikulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District In Crime No.68 of 2014 ...Respondents 1 and 2/Complainants

¶16

3.Jebastian ...Respondent No.3/Defacto Complainant

¶17

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in connection with P.R.C.No.122 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Sankarankovil and quash the same and pass such further or other order and may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.J.C.Rathnavel Pandian For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Anbarasan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) For R3 : Mr.N.Siva

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking to quash the Charge Sheet in P.R.C.No.122 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.

¶21

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the third respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State.

¶22

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

¶23

3.The petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A6 in P.R.C.NO.122 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 294(b) and 506(i)

¶24

¶25

IPC r/w Section 3(1)(r)(s) 3 (2) (Va) SC/ST Amendment Ordinance Act, 2014.

¶26

In the grounds raised, it has been stated that the matter has

¶27

been compromised and there is no need to proceed further. A joint compromise memo dated 22.07.2015 has also been filed to that effect duly signed by the parties and attested by the learned counsel for the parties. The third respondent/defacto complainant is also present before this Court and the third respondent has reiterated the same. This Court has perused the compromise memo.

¶28

5.Considering the submissions made and after going through the relevant documents including the offences alleged against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to quash the charge sheet as no useful purpose would be served by keeping the Charge Sheet any longer. Accordingly, the Charge Sheet in P.R.C.No.122 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil is quashed. The compromise memo shall form part of record. This petition is ordered.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar (R )

¶31

\True copy\

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

¶34

The Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil

¶35

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Sankarankovil,Tirunelveli District.

¶36

3.The Special Sub Inspector of Police,Karuvikulam Police Station,Tirunelveli District

¶37

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶38

+1cc to Mr.J.C.Rathinavel Pandian, Advocate Sr.No.40230

¶39

akm/22.07.15 /2p-6c/

¶40

CRL.O.P.No.11626 of 2015 22.07.2015

¶41

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

Senthilkumaran v. the Deputy Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthilkumaran v. the Deputy Superintendent

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

Satham Hussain Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Chinnammal Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Mathanraj Vs the Commissioner of Police

S. Vellangkanni, Vs the Superintendent

David Raj Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

A.M. Vijayasakthivel Vs the Inspector of Police