Allowed

Mokkaiyan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Jul 2015CRL OP(MD)/12878/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed two Criminal Original Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs filed in eye cases (Crime Nos. 149 and 150 of 2012) where the parties had executed a compromise memo, noting no useful purpose would be served by maintaining the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIRs in Crime Nos. 149 and 150 of 2012 on the file of the First Respondent Police are quashed.

Mokkaiyan Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.07.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.12878 and 12879 of 2015

¶6

In Crl.O.P.No.12878 of 2015: 1.Mokkaiyan 2.Nallammal 3.Kaviraja 4.Ranjithkumar 5.Lakshmi ... Petitioners/A1 to A5 Vs. 1.The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, Dindigul District. (In Crime No.150 of 2012) ... Respondent/Complainant 2.Ponram .. Respondent/Defacto Complainant In Crl.O.P.No.12879 of 2015: 1.Ponram 2.Vijaya 3.Vijayakumar 4.Asaikumar ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 to 4 Vs.

¶7

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, Dindigul District. (In Crime No.149 of 2012) Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent/Complainant 2.Mokkaiyan .. Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶8

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12878 of 2015

¶9

This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to the proceedings in PRC No.17 of 2015 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilakottai and quash the same.

¶10

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12879 of 2015

¶11

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No. 149 of 2012 on the file of the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent police and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the above circumstances.

¶12

¶13

For Petitioners : No appearance (in both Crl.O.Ps) For R1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) (in both Crl.O.Ps)

¶14

For R2 : No appearance (in both Crl.O.Ps)

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

The Criminal Original petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 149 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent police.

¶17

2.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State.

¶18

As both the Criminal Original Petitions have been filed against the very same case in Crime No.149 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent police, they have been taken up and disposed of by common order.

¶19

4.The two cases have been filed by the petitioners in each case against each other in Crime Nos.149 and 150 of 2012 for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506(i) IPC and for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) and 307 IPC.

¶20

5.All the parties are present before this Court. This Court verified the signing of the compromise memo with the parties and while acknowledging the same, it is submitted that both groups are willing to withdraw the complaints given against each other. This Court has perused the compromise memo which is duly signed by them and attested by the learned counsel. This Court is satisfied on perusal of records that it is fit case to quash the proceedings.

¶21

6.Considering the joint memo of compromise filed and after going through the relevant documents including the offences alleged against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings as no useful purpose would be served by keeping the FIRs in Crime Nos. 149 and 150 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent police any longer. Accordingly, the FIRs in Crime Nos. 149 and 150 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent police, are quashed. The joint compromise memo shall form part of record. The petitions are ordered.

¶22

Sd/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (AS)

¶23

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

¶24

/TRUE COPY/

¶25

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ses

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai.
2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, Dindigul District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+ 1 CC to M/s. Dhana Law Associates SR.No.337765
+ 1 CC to Mr.S.Sabbani Karbura Jothi, ADV SR.No.337766
CRL.O.P.Nos.12878 and 12879 of 2015
10.07.2015
JMN - 29.07.2015 - 3P - 7C

¶30

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

Mokkaiyan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mokkaiyan 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

Rajesh Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Muthukrishanan @ Muthukutty Vs the Superintendent of Police

R.P.Krishnamoorthy Vs the Inspector of Police

Mariappan Vs the Inspector of Police

Vr.Meyyappan, Vs the Inspector of Police

R. Rajaselvaraj Vs the Commissioner of Police