Allowed

Durai v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Sept 2016CRL OP(MD)/15322/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed the FIR after recording a compoundable settlement between the parties, observing that the chance of conviction was bleak and ends of justice so required.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.70 of 2016 pending on the file of the 1st respondent police in respect of the petitioner quashed.

Durai Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.09.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15322 of 2016

Durai

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Eruvadi Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.70 of 2016)

¶11

2.Mahesh .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying call for the records pertaining to the case in Cr. No. 70 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Niresh Kumar For 1^st Respondent : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate. (Criminal Side) For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.P.Samuvel Guna Singh

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

¶16

A case in Crime No.70 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(i) by the 1^st respondent against the petitioner.

¶17

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner and the second respondent, appeared in person and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent police.

¶18

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the parties filed a joint memo of compromise dated 29.07.2016, duly stating that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, under which the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above case in Crime No.70 of 2016 pending on the file of the first respondent. The second respondent would also submit that he has not sustained any injury at the time of occurrence.

¶20

4.1. From the compromise, this Court can safely infer that the chances of the defacto complainant deposing against the petitioner is less and therefore, the chance of conviction of the accused is bleak.

¶21

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 held that the High Court can quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so requires, i.e. there would be almost no chance of conviction. Thus, B.S.Joshi’s case provided a creative solution for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Therefore, considering, a) the nature of relationship between the parties, b) nature of offences alleged c) the settlement arrived at and d) the ultimate result of the prosecution, this Court is of the view that quashing of the FIR will be in the ends of justice and accordingly, the same is ordered to be quashed.

¶23

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.70 of 2016 pending on the file of the 1^st respondent police in respect of the petitioner are hereby quashed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The Inspector of Police,

¶30

Eruvadi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶31

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor

¶32

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +One cc to M/s.R.Niresh Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.50229 mj

¶33

RL/4C/2P/SS3/15/9/2016

¶34

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15322 of 2016 01/09/2016

¶35

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

Durai v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durai 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

Kalil Rahman Vs the Inspector of Police

Thirunavukkarasu Vs the Inspector of Police

S.John Dayalan Vs the Commissioner of Police

N.S.Mani Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Revathi Prema Roobarani Vs Ganesan

Chetan Desai, Director Vs M/S. Paramount Textile Mills