Allowed

Saththar Singh v. State by

Madras HC22 Mar 2016CRL OP/16785/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Madras, allowed Criminal Original Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings (C.C.No.366 of 2014). The second respondent filed an affidavit stating the matter was settled via elder mediation, leading the Court to hold no useful purpose would be served by the trial.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.366 of 2014 were quashed and the Criminal Original Petitions were allowed.

Saththar Singh Vs State by — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.03.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.16785 of 2015 & 427 of 2016

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶8

1.Saththar Singh 2.Krishna Sumathi ...Petitioners in Crl.OP.16785 of 2015

¶9

Narendra Dhan Singh ...Petitioner in Crl.OP.427 of 2016

¶10

Vs.

¶11

State by, The Inspector of Police, W-35, All Women Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai. (Crime No.34 of 2014) 2. Deepika ...Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps.

¶12

Common Prayer:-Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.366 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Tambaram and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioners : Ms.M.Akila For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor (For R1)

¶14

Mr.C.R.Malar Vannan (For R2)

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

The petitioners have come forward with this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.366 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, Chennai, in Crime No.34 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶17

2.Today (22.03.2016), the petitioners, the second respondent, their respective counsel and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor were present and their identification is also verified by this Court. The second respondent filed an

¶18

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

¶19

affidavit stating that even though case been registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A), 406, 325 and 506(ii) of lPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, the matter has been settled at the intervention of the elder persons, so she has no objection for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.366 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.

¶20

3.Considering the nature of allegation and also considering the consent affidavit filed by the second respondent, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the trial to proceed with. Therefore, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.366 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, is hereby, quashed and these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kkd
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
W-35, All Women Police Station,
Tambaram, Chennai.

¶23

The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.

¶24

The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, Advocate, S.R.No.18471

¶26

+1cc to Ms.M.Akila, Advocate, S.R.No.18206

¶27

1 cc to Ms.M.Akila, Advocate Sr 18205 (15/4/16)

¶28

Crl.O.P.Nos.16785 of 2015 & 427 of 2016 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶29

CA(CO) CA(06/04/2016)

¶30

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

Saththar Singh v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saththar Singh v. State by

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/s.Naser Tanning Company, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

N.Paul Vs Vinod Kumar

Jaya Murugan Vs Mr.S.Madhan

Thavamani Vs R.Palani

K.Rasamuthu, Vs The Deputy Inspector General

Tr.Vivek Chopra Vs State Rep by