Allowed

Mohamed Bilal v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC17 Jun 2016CRL OP/10165/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitions filed to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 294 and 506 IPC. The court allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings upon presentation of a compromise memo by the wife/complainant stating reunion and living together.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in CC.No.2897 of 2011 quashed against all accused upon acceptance of the compromise memo filed by the wife.

Mohamed Bilal Vs the State Rep by Its — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 17.06.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.10165 and 12730 of 2016

¶6

Mohamed Bilal ... Petitioner in
Crl.OP.10165/16/Accused
1.S.Imran Khan
2.A.Saleema Begum
3.Kadhar Meeran ... Petitioners in
Crl.OP.12730/16/Accused
Vs.
1.State rep by its
The Inspector of Police,
W-12, All Woman Police Station,
Harbour Range, Chennai.
(Cr.No.1 of 2011)
2.Mahboob Jailani ... Respondents in
both Crl.OPs/Complainant
/Defacto Complainant
Common Prayer : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in CC.No.2897 of 2011 on
the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town,
Chennai and quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioner/s : Mr.T.Muruganantham in both Crl.OPs For 1^st respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, APP in both Crl.OPs

¶8

C O M M O N O R D E R These petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.2897 of 2011 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

¶10

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

¶11

On a complaint lodged by Mahbood Jailani/2^nd respondent herein, the 1^st respondent police registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2011 on 02.07.2011 under Sections 498[A], 294[b], 506[ii] and 109 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act against the petitioners/accused herein, challenging which, the accused are before this Court for quashing the CC.No.2897 of 2011, on the ground that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement.

¶12

Today, the de facto complainant/2^nd respondent herein is present and she has filed a Compromise Memo, wherein, she has stated as follows:

¶13

“3. I submit that against all the accused herein, I gave the complaint before W-12, AWPS, Chennai who in turn registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2011 for the alleged offences under Sec 498[A], 294[b], 506[ii] and 109 IPC and the respondent completed the investigation and laid final report and the same is pending in CC.No.2897 of 2011 before this Hon'ble Court.

¶14

I submit that during the pendency of the above case, a compromise was reached between me and my husband and my in-laws for reunion and accordingly I joined with my husband and I am living with my husband forgetting all the differences which I had with my husband and in-laws. Now I am pregnant.

¶15

I submit that since a compromise is reached between me and my husband and in-laws no useful purpose is going to be served in conducting the above case further. By recording the compromise reached between me and my husband and in-laws this Hon'ble Court may compound the offence.”

¶16

In view of the above, these petitions are allowed and the proceedings in CC.No.2897 of 2011 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai is hereby quashed against all the accused.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

1.The Metropolitan Magistrate-III, George Town, Chennai.

¶23

2.The Inspector of Police,
W-12, All Woman Police Station,
Harbour Range, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.T.Muruganantham, Advocate Sr.33589
Crl.O.P.Nos.10165 & 12730 of 2016
msm[co]
srg 30/06/2016

¶24

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

Mohamed Bilal v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Bilal v. the State Rep by Its

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.Selvam 46 Years Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Mrs.B.Kanai Kalaiselvi Vs State Rep by

M.Sathish Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Siva @ Sivakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Brindha Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Anbu Vs the District Superintend of