Allowed

Karthick v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Aug 2016CRL OP(MD)/24394/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR involving Sections 294, 323, 324, and 506 IPC. The court noted a joint settlement and inferred a bleak chance of conviction, ruling that quashing served the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in Crime No.547 of 2015 under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i) IPC against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

Karthick Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.08.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.24394 of 2015

¶7

1.Karthick

¶8

2.E.Johnson 3.M.Tamilmani @ Muthamil Selvan

¶9

4.Arun @ Arunraj

¶10

... Petitioners/A1 to A4

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The State rep. by

¶13

the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirumangalam Police Station, Tirumangalam

¶14

Madurai District. (Crime No.547 of 2016) ... 1^st respondent / Complainant

¶15

2.K.Nagarajan ... 2^nd respondent/Defacto complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.547 of 2015, on the file of the 1^st respondent Police and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vadivelan

¶16

For R1 : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani

¶17

Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

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.

¶21

A case in Crime No.547 of 2015 has been registered under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i) IPC by the 1^st respondent against the petitioners.

¶22

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners 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.

¶23

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the parties filed a joint memo of compromise dated 07.01.2016, 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.547 of 2015 pending on the file of the first respondent.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.547 of 2015 dated 12.11.2015 on the file of the 1^st respondent police in respect of the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar (AE)

¶31

/True copy/

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

To:

¶34

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Tirumangalam Police Station, Tirumangalam,Madurai District.

¶35

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶36

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.T.Vadivelan, Advocate In SR.No. 47673

¶38

¶39

JA-AAL-MPA-08.09.2016-2P:4C

¶40

Crl.O.P(MD) No.24394 of 2015

¶41

24.08.2016

¶42

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

Karthick v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthick v. the Sub 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

Ashok Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Kasirajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Anitha Varadhan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Rm.Arun Swaminathan Vs the Executive Magistrate

Jothimani Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Anand Vs the Superintendent of Police