Allowed

Parimelazhagan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Jul 2016CRL OP/11795/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings in CC.No.413 of 2015 under Section 304[A] IPC after the complainant deposited compensation with the Industrial Commissioner, demonstrating that the case had become purely compensatory and settlement had been arrived at.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.413 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur are quashed against all the accused.

Parimelazhagan Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.07.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL.OP.No.11795 of 2016

¶6

1.Parimelazhagan

¶7

2.Mohamed Malik ... Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2

¶8

¶9

1.State rep by The Inspector of Police, C-1, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

¶10

2.S.Jeyanthi ... Respondents/Defacto Complainant

¶11

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in CC.No.413 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioners : Ms.S.Mekhala

¶13

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.413 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent; learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

¶15

On the complaint lodged by one Jeyanthi, the 1^st respondent police registered a case in Crime No.640 of 2013 and after completing the investigation, filed final report in C.C.No.413 of 2015 before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur against the petitioners herein for an offence under Section 304[A] IPC. The prosecution case is that the deceased Arun was an employee https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under the petitioners herein. While he was repairing the

¶16

ventilator exhaust fan, he fell down and died. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have not provided him safety belt at that time, when he was at work. The FIR has been registered based on the complaint given by Jeyanthi, who is the mother of the deceased Arun. It is seen that the parties have arrived at a compromise and that a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- has been paid as compensation to the family of the deceased.

¶17

Today, S.Jeyanthi/2^nd respondent herein is present before this Court and she has been identified by Mr.K.Sampath, Sub Inspector of Police, C-1 Sriperumbudur Police Station, Kanchipuram District. She has filed an affidavit, wherein, she has stated as follows:

¶18

“2. I state that on 05.08.2003 at about 11.30a.m. there was an accident that took place at Adison Company in Sriperumbudur while he was working there because of which he sustained injuries and succumbed to it.

¶19

Having regard to the fact that the occurrence was purely accidental and I have arrived at a settlement and entered into a agreement of compromise by which the Swathi Engineering Agencies who are contractors agree to pay Rs.12,50,000/towards compensation and expenses. Out of the said sum Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on 09.08.2013, Rs.8,05,880/- was deposited before the Commissioner of Employers Compensation-II on 20.04.2015, Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited in my name as Fixed Deposit at Indian Bank, Poondi Branch and the balance sum of Rs.1,44,120/- by way of Demand Draft bearing No.19702 dated 21.06.2016 drawn on Axis Bank, Chennai. I therefore, do not intend to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein in view of the above facts. I humbly submit that the continuation of the prosecution would therefore be a futile exercise.

¶20

In these circumstances this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.413 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.”

¶21

In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC.No.413 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur is hereby quashed against all the accused.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(J)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

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

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

gya

¶28

¶29

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.

¶30

2.The Inspector of Police,
C-1, Sriperumbudur Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.Sunder Mohan, Advocate, S.R.No.39372
CRL.OP.No.11795 of 2016
CTK(CO)
CA(27/07/2016)

¶31

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

Parimelazhagan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parimelazhagan 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

Anandharaj Vs the Station House Officer

N.Chellappa Vs the Commissioner of Police

Guru @ Kumaraguru Vs State by

A.Prathap Kumar, Vs State Rep. by Inspector of

R.Arun Kumar Vs J.Yuhama @ Raja Meenakshi

Mr.P.Vijayakumar Vs Mr.D.Ganesan