Allowed

B.S.Lavanya, v. a.Jenix Dev Singh

Madras HC19 Sept 2017CRL OP/16263/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of a private complaint regarding vehicle repair charges. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings as the parties had amicably settled the dispute and the complainant had accepted the settlement amount.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No. 4964 of 2017 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, so far as the petitioners are concerned were quashed.

B.S.Lavanya, Vs a.Jenix Dev Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.09.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.16263 of 2017
1. B.S. Lavanya
2. Lanson Motors Pvt Ltd.
Rep. by its General Manager,-Customer Service
Mr.Salam,
No.10, Radial Road,
Pallikaranai, Chennai -100.
3. Thulasi
4. V.JohnSukirdoss .. Petitioners
Vs.
A. Jenix Dev Singh .. Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in CC.No. 4964 of 2017 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and quash all the further proceedings as against the petitioners.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. M.S.Soundara Rajan

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

By order dated 19.09.2017 passed in Crl.O.P.No.16174

¶13

of 2017, this Court has passed the following order:

¶14

“2. It is seen that the respondent herein had filed a private complaint against the petitioners in C.C.No. 4964 of 2017 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai seeking claim of Rs.88,736/- towards the repair charges for the damages suffered by his vehicle in an accident taken place on 03.01.2017. It is also seen that by a letter dated 17.02.2017, the respondent herein had agreed for receiving 60 % of the claim amount. When the said complaint was pending, there was a settlement talk between the petitioners and the respondent, pursuant to which, the respondent herein had agreed to withdraw the complaint in C.C. No. 4964 of 2017 after receiving a sum of Rs.43,062/- as a full and final settlement towards the difference of the amount payable by the Insurance company. The petitioner has produced the original letter dated 23.08.2017, wherein the respondent / complainant has acknowledged the receipt of DD. No.013881 dated 21.08.2017 for the agreed amount of Rs.43,062/-.

¶15

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

¶17

3. In view of the amount being amicably settled in favour of the respondent/complainant, I do not find any reason as to why the impugned complaint should be kept pending in C.C.No.4964 of 2017 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai”.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid order, this Criminal Original
Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in CC.No. 4964 of 2017
on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, so far as the
petitioners is concerned stands quashed.
19.09.2017
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
aav/mrp
To
1. The IX Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH,J

aav/mrp

Crl.O.P.No. 16263 of 2017
<br>

¶24

19.09.2017

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

B.S.Lavanya, v. a.Jenix Dev Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.S.Lavanya, v. a.Jenix Dev Singh

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

P.Chandrasekaran, Aged 70 Yrs, Vs the Insepctor of Police

S.Sambandam Vs The Commissioner of Police

Mrs.J.Parimala, Vs The Principal Secretary

S.Selvaraj Vs the Commissioner of Police

R.Padma Vs the Inspector of Police

Manikandan, Aged 32 Yrs Vs the Superintendent of Police