Allowed

Sujeet Singh v. the State Rep by

Madras HC9 Feb 2016CRL OP/1705/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashal of proceedings under Section 304(A) IPC. Court quashed proceedings after recording a compromise between the accused and the deceased's wife, finding no useful purpose served by keeping them pending.

What did the court decide?

Queued Criminal Original Petition and quashed the entire proceedings in Crime No. 919 of 2015 pending on the file of the first respondent police.

Sujeet Singh Vs the State Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.02.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. MALA

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.1705 of 2016

¶6

Sujeet Singh

¶7

.. Petitioner/Accused

¶8

.. Vs ..

¶9

The State represented by its Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

¶10

Nand Krishor Mahato .. Respondents/Complainants

¶11

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in FIR Crime No.919 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Devi For R-1 : Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor - - - - - ORDER

¶13

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.919 of 20015 pending on the file of the first respondent police.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

¶15

It is seen that the alleged offence attributed against the petitioner is under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Even though the complaint has been given by the second respondent viz., Nand Krishor Mahato, who is a co-worker, his whereabouts is not known. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner and the wife of the deceased namely, Shiv Bachan Devi, appeared in person and their identification is also verified by this Court. The wife of the deceased has entered into a compromise with the petitioner/accused and she has also accepted the terms of the compromise. The learned

¶16

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

¶17

counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed a memo of compromise stating that since the matter has been compromised, the wife of the deceased namely, Shiv Bachan Devi, has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused.

¶18

Considering the nature of allegation and also considering the memo of compromise, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings in Crime No.919 of 2015 pending on the file of the first respondent police, is, hereby, quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed accordingly. The Memo of Compromise shall form part of the order of this Court.

¶19

Jrl
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(J)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Maraimalai Nagar Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to M/s.G.Devi, Advocate SR 8296
ppa(co)
prk27/2 CRL.O.P.No.1705 of 2016

¶20

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

Sujeet Singh v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujeet Singh v. the State Rep 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

Munusamy Reddie Vs Superintendent of Police

P.Ravi Vs the Superintendent of Police

N.D.Sukumar Vs State Rep. by

K.Tamizh Mani Vs the Commissioner of Police

A.Prakash Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Senthil Kumar Vs K.K.Sathishkumar