Allowed

P.Ramachandran v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Apr 2016CRL OP/9604/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings registered against petitioners under various IPC sections and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The proceedings were quashed based on a joint compromise memo submitted by the parties, including the de facto complainant, despite an objection from the Additional P

What did the court decide?

Quashed the proceedings in Crime No.31 of 2016; consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

P.Ramachandran Vs the Inspector of Police — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.04.2016

¶3

CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA
Crl.O.P.No.9604 of 2016
and
Crl.M.P.No.4958 of 2016
1.P.Ramachandran
2.R.Prabhu
3.R.Murugesan
4.P.Sundaram
5.S.Tamimun Ansari
6.K.Murugesan
7.S.Rajesh
8.M.Manimaran
9.S.Arun .. Petitioners
Vs.
State rep. by
1.The Inspector of Police
Mallasamuthram police station
Namakkal District.
Crime No.31 of 2016
2.K.Rangasamy .. Respondents

¶4

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for records in Crime No.31 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent and quash the F.I.R.

¶5

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Arulmurugan For R1 : Mr.C.Emalias Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶6

This petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.31 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent.

¶7

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶8

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

¶9

3.Today, the petitioners 1 to 4, 6, 8, 9 and the second respondent are present and their identification have been verified by this Court. The petitioners 5 and 7 are not present. Ninth petitioner's name has been mentioned in the petition as “Arun”, but in the I.D. Card, his name has been mentioned as “Thangaraj”.

¶10

4.The second respondent himself appears before this Court and submits that he has given a complaint against the petitioners herein and on that basis, a case in Crime No.31 of 2016 has been registered for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i), 379 (NH) of IPC read with 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He further submits that the matter has been compromised and hence, he has no objection to quash the proceedings in Crime No.31 of 2016. Both the parties have filed a joint compromise memo to that effect.

¶11

5.At this juncture, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has made an objection to quash the proceedings stating that the case has also been registered for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶12

6.However, the second respondent/defacto complainant himself appears before this Court and submits that he has no objection to quash the proceedings. Hence, recording the submissions so made by the second respondent and also the joint memo of compromise filed by the parties, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.31 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. kj Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar

¶13

¶14

1.The Inspector of Police Mallasamuthram police station Namakkal District.

¶15

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

¶16

1 cc to Mr.G.Arulmurugan, Advocate Sr 25955

¶17

KR/28/4/16

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.9604 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.4958 of 2016

¶19

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

P.Ramachandran v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramachandran 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.Diwakaran Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Chitra, Vs The District Collector

A.Aruna (Aged 30 Years) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Pichandi Vs the Inspector of Police

C. Subramani, Vs State Rep. by Inspector of

Kannan @ Kamalakkannan Vs State Rep. by