Allowed

V.Diwakaran v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Apr 2016CRL OP/8714/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Madras, quashed criminal proceedings regarding alleged house demolition after the de facto complainant submitted a no-objection affidavit and compromise memo, ruling that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in P.R.C. No. 4 of 2013 quashed; Criminal Original Petition allowed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

V.Diwakaran Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.04.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.8714 of 2016

¶6

and Crl.M.P.Nos.4554 and 4555 of 2016

¶7

1.V.Diwakaran 2.Sankar @ Veera Sivasankar 3.Sakthi .. Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Inspector of Police Needamangalam police station Thiruvarur District.

¶10

2.Kasthuri .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for records relating to impugned proceedings in PRC No.4 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate's Court, Needamangalam and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioners:Mr.Veerakathiravan, senior counsel for Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumpadiyar For R1 :Mr.C.Emalias Addl. Public Prosecutor For R2 :Mr.Swami Subramanian

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in PRC No.4 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif-cumJudicial Magistrate's Court, Needamangalam.

¶15

2.Today, the petitioners, the second respondent and their respective counsel are present and identification of the parties have been verified by this Court. The second respondent/defacto complainant herself submits that she has no objection to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.4 of 2013. She has also filed an affidavit and compromise memo to that effect. In para-6 of the affidavit, it was specifically stated that the petitioners are no way connected to the demolition of her house.

¶16

3.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent submits that he wants to file https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ an objection to the application by relying upon the judgment

¶17

of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2010 (9) SCC 701 (State of Maharashtra and others v. Arun Gulab Gawali and others).

¶18

4.The above said citation relied upon by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because in the present case, the offences are under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii) and 120(b) IPC read with Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. Admittedly, the property belongs to HR and CE Department and the temple viz., Arulmigu Santhana Ramasamy Temple is coming under the control of HR and CE Department. But the defacto complainant is residing in the house built up in the property of the temple. It was alleged that the house has been demolished by the petitioners herein. Now the defacto complainant herself appears before this Court and submits that the matter has been settled. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the request made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is hereby rejected.

¶19

5.Considering the nature of allegations and also considering the compromise memo, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings in P.R.C.No.4 of 2013 pending on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate's Court, Needamangalam, Thiruvarur in respect of the petitioners herein, is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed accordingly. The memo of compromise shall form part of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar kj To

¶22

1.Inspector of Police, Needamangalam police station Thiruvarur District.

¶23

2.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate's Court, Needamangalam, Thiruvarur.

¶24

3.-do- Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur.

¶25

The Public Prosecutor

¶26

High Court, Chennai.

¶27

1 cc to Mr.O.S. Thilak Pasumpadiyar, Advocate Sr.25014

¶28

1 cc to MrSwami Subramanian, Advocate Sr.25971

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.8714 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4554 and 4555 of 2016

¶30

RSY(CO)

¶31

Eu 03.05.16 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V.Diwakaran v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Diwakaran 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balamani Vs the Commissioner of Police

R.Suresh Kumar Vs the Sub-Divisional Executive

Mr.Kharthik Gounder Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

A.Aruna (Aged 30 Years) Vs The Commissioner of Police

Gandhi Vs State Rep by

R.Eswaran Vs State Rep. by