Allowed

Rengarajan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC2 Mar 2015CRL OP(MD)/1294/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench allowed a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC. The court accepted a joint compromise memo filed by the accused and the complainant, resolving the matter amicably, and ordered the quashing of the FIR under Sections 323, 354(A), and 506(ii) IPC.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed; the proceedings in Crime No.437 of 2014 are hereby quashed.

Rengarajan Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.03.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1294 of 2015

1.Rengarajan

2.D.Selladurai

3.S.Bangaru

4.S.Balasubramanian ..Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4

¶11

vs.

¶12

State through by 1.The Inspector of Police, District Sessions Court, Police Station, In Crime No.437 of 2014, Trichy District. ..1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶13

2.Lalithambigai ..2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complaiant

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the F.I.R in Crime No.437 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶15

For petitioners : Mr.M.Subash Babu

¶16

For R-1 : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan

¶17

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.437 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent.

¶20

2.On a complaint given by the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant, the 1^st respondent has registered a case in Crime No.437 of 2014 against the petitioner/ Accused, for the offences under Sections 323, 354(A), 506 (ii) of I.P.C r/w Section 4 of Woman Harassment Act.

¶21

The parties are present before this Court and they are identified by the respective learned counsels and both the parties have filed a joint compromise memo stating that the matter in issue between them has been amicably resolved and therefore, the defacto complainant is not willing to prosecute the case.

¶22

The Court has also heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶23

Given the nature of offences, this Court accepts the compromise.

¶24

In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed the proceedings in Crime No.437 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent, is hereby quashed. The memo of compromise shall form part of the records.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶27

/True copy/

¶28

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

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

¶32

1.The Inspector of Police, District Sessions Court, Police Station, Trichy District.

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1294 of 2015 02.03.2015

¶35

pm pbk 16/03/2015 ::2p-3c:

¶36

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

Rengarajan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rengarajan 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

V.Balaji Vs E.Thilagam

Mrf Limited Vs Mrs.Ujjawal Sampath Chordia

Shanthi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Karupaiah Vs the Superintendent of Police

D.Selladurai Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Balasubramanian Vs the Superintendent of Police