Allowed

R.Ramesh M/a 38 Years v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Oct 2016CRL OP/18856/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC. The compromise was established through an affidavit filed by the wife, who swore to reconciliation and happy cohabitation. The first accused died during the pendency.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.03 of 2015 registered on the file of the first respondent police is quashed, and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

R.Ramesh M/a 38 Years Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.10.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P. No.18856 of 2016

¶6

R. Ramesh Petitioner/Accused

¶7

vs.

¶8

1 State by the Inspector of Police W-18, All Women Police Station M.K.B. Nagar Chennai 600 083 (Crime No.3 of 2015)

¶9

2 Ranjini

¶10

Respondents

¶11

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.03/2015 and quash the FIR in Crime No.03 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent.

¶12

For petitioner Mr. P. Parthipan

¶13

For R1 Mr. C. Emalias Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.03/2015 and quash the FIR in Crime No.03 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent.

¶16

2 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

3 On the complaint lodged by one Ranjini, the second respondent herein, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2015 on 06.10.2015 under Sections 498-A and 506 (I) IPC, against R. Ramesh, the petitioner herein and one Aruna, challenging which, Ramesh is before this Court on the ground that he has arrived at a compromise with Ranjini.

¶18

4 Today, Ranjini and Ramesh are present before this Court and they are identified by Mrs.C.Rangeswari, WHC 16906, W18,

¶19

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

¶20

AWPS, M.K.B. Nagar, who is also present before this Court. It is reported that Aruna (A2) has breathed her last on 23.03.2016.

¶21

5 Ranjini has filed an affidavit stating that she has joined her husband, viz., the petitioner herein and that they are living together happily. The relevant portion of her affidavit reads as under:

¶22

“1. I state that I am the second respondent in the quash petition and the de facto complainant in the above Crime No.03/2015 on the file of the 1^st respondent. I have carefully read out the contents of above quash petition filed by the petitioner herein. The averments in the quash petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

¶23

I most respectfully state that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the quash petition in view of the compromise arrived between myself and the petitioner herein, who is my husband and by way of the compromise. Based on the compromise arrived between us we have been living together in the said address. The petitioner herein has agreed to withdraw the above divorce petition filed against me, when its coming for hearing.”

¶24

In view of the above, the FIR in Crime No.03 of 2015 on the
file of the first respondent police is quashed and as a sequel,
this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
cad
To
1 The Inspector of Police
W-18, All Women Police Station
M.K.B. Nagar
Chennai 600 083

¶25

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

¶26

2 The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Chennai 600 104

¶27

Crl.O.P. No.18856 of 2016

¶28

scd(co)
aa07/11/2016

¶29

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

R.Ramesh M/a 38 Years v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ramesh M/a 38 Years 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.Sneelakandan Jothidar Vs the Commissioner of Police

Ponniah Thulukanam @ Tony Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mrs.Loganayaki Vs State Rep. by

Kumar @ Pullikumar Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Ramesh Vs the Assistant Registrar of

Ranganathan Vs State by