Allowed

Nainar Saravanan v. State Rep by

Madras HC8 Aug 2016CRL OP/7481/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P. filed to quash charge sheet for offences including 498(A) IPC. Petitioner showed consent affidavit from wife stating parties settled amicably with mutual consent divorce pending. Court recorded no objection to quash. Petition allowed and proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed and proceedings in CC No.1877 of 2015 quashed; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Nainar Saravanan Vs State Rep by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.08.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP.No.7481 of 2016

¶6

and Crl.MP.No.3970 of 2016

¶7

Nainar Saravanan ...Petitioner/Accused

¶8

Vs
1.State rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
F-5, Choolaimedu Police Station,
Chennai-600 094.
2.Rajani ...Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and to quash the charge sheet in CC No.877 of 2015 in Crime No.217 of 2013 on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶10

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Muthusamy For Respondents :Mr.C.Emalias, [for R1] Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in CC No.877 of 2015 in Crime No.217 of 2013 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶13

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

¶14

On the complaint lodged by Ranjani (de facto complainant/2^nd respondent), the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.217 of 2013, and after completing the investigation, has filed final report in C.C.No.1877 of 2015 before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, against Nainar Saravanan (accused/petitioner herein) for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 498(A), 506(i) IPC, to quash which, Nainar Saravanan is before this Court, on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ground that the parties have amicably settled the issues.

¶15

On notice, Ranjani, the second respondent/de facto complainant is present today with her father Mr.C.Sankar Babu, and she has been identified by Mr.V.Shankar, Inspector of Police, F5 Choolaimedu Police Station, Chennai. Ranjani has filed an affidavit wherein in Paragraph No.4, she has stated as follows:

¶16

“4. I submit that in the meantime both of us have entered compromise out of Court and settled amicably and filed divorce petition by mutual consent in OP.No.515 of 2016 on the file of II Addl. Family Court, Chennai, which is posted for final disposal on 8.8.2016. Hence, I have no objection to quash the CC.No.1877 of 2015 filed by the petitioner pending before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶17

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record the same of my no objection to quash the CC.No.1877 of 2015 filed by the petitioner pending before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and thus render justice.”

¶18

Recording the same this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings are quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

ds Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

¶20

1.The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. -do- thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8. 3.The Inspector of Police, F-5, Choolaimedu Police Station, Chennai-600 094. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

¶21

KR/29/8/16

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.OP.No.7481 of 2016 and Crl.MP No.3970 of 2016

Nainar Saravanan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nainar Saravanan v. 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

V.Kuppulakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Prabhakaran Vs the Inspector of Police

V.S.Samsudeen Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Ravishankar, Aged 40 Years Vs the Inspector of Police

Mrs. M. Srikala, Age 40 Years, Vs State Rep. by Inspector of

Velmurugan Vs State Rep. by