Allowed

Ramasamy v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Apr 2017CRL OP(MD)/10376/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 147, 323, and 506(i) IPC following a joint affidavit and compromise memo between the accused and the de-facto complainant, allowing an interim crusade against trees removal condition and dismissing the connected miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.27 of 2014 was quashed; the connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 was closed; accused directed to pay Rs.500 each for tree removal.

Ramasamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10376 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶6

1.Ramasamy 2.Selvam 3.Packiaraj 4.Arun Prasad 5.Senthil 6.Rajkumar : Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 6 -vs1. State Rep by, The Sub Inspector of Police, Andipatti Police Station, Theni District. (Crime No.27 of 2014) :1^st Respondent/Complainant 2. Chinnaramasamy, S/o, Narayanasamy, Nachiyarpuram, Rengasamudram Post, Theni District. : 2^nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant

¶7

Prayer : Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records pertaining to the first information report in Crime No.27 of 2014 on the file of the 1^st respondent herein and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioners :Mr.G.Ganeshkumar For Respondent No.1 :Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent No.2 :Mr.K.Suresh

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

On the complaint lodged by one Chinnaramasamy / 2^nd respondent, the first respondent police registered a case on 15.01.2014 in Crime No. 27 of 2014 for offences under Sections 147,323 & 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, challenging which, the petitioners have filed the present quash application on the ground that there are no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ materials in the FIR. At the time of admission, this Court had passed the following order, on 11.06.2014:

¶11

¶12

“Notice to the second respondent returnable by three weeks.For filing of final report alone is stayed, otherwise investigation may go on. Post after three weeks.”

¶13

During the pendency of this quash application, it is represented that the accused and the De-facto Complainant had arrived at a compromise on 17.04.2017.

¶14

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.K.Rajendran, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Andipatti Police Station, Theni District, is present in Court. The defacto complainant is present and the accused are also present. The identifications of the accused were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) through Mr.K.Rajendran, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Andipatti Police Station, Theni District.

¶15

The petitioners and the second respondent have filed an affidavit along with a joint compromise memo dated 17.04.2017, in which, it has been stated as follows:

¶16

"3.The petitioners submit that while pending the investigation, the petitioner filed a quash petition before this Court and obtained interim order not to file final report and in the meantime both the accused herein and the 2^nd respondent herein settled the matter out of Court, at instance of the elder of both family since they are belongs to same village, and now they filed memo of compromise to quash the case in Crime NO.27 of 2014 on the file of the 1^st respondent herein. 4.The petitioners submit that the 2^nd respondent/De-facto Complainant do not want to proceed the case further against petitioners herein.”

¶17

In view of the affidavit dated 17.04.2017, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.27 of 2014 pending on the file of the respondent police in respect of all the accused are hereby quashed. The affidavit along with a compromise memo dated 17.04.2017 shall form part of this order. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 is closed.

¶18

5.At the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners themselves voluntarily came forward to contribute some amount for the purpose of removal of Karuvelam Trees.

¶19

6.Accepting the submission, the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each (totally https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.3,000/- Rupees Three Thousand only), to the credit of Indian Bank Savings Account No.6514082295, operated by the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, for

¶20

¶21

the purpose of removal of Karuvelam Trees, within a period of two weeks from today. After making payment, a copy of the challan shall be furnished to the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Andipatti Police Station, Theni District. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 3.The Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to M/S.G.Ganeshkumar, Advocate SR.No. 52718

¶23

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10376 of 2014 Dated: 19.04.2017 JM/JC/04.05.2017/3P/5C

¶24

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

Ramasamy v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramasamy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.R.S.Subburaj Vijairam Vs Ashok Dal and Oil Mill Company

D.G.Leo Pristly @ Leo Christly Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthukrishnan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Amirthalingam Chettiar Vs the Inspector of Police

D.Simpson, Vs the Inspector of Police

Sri Sairam Educational and Vs the Superintendent of Police