Allowed

Govindarajan v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Mar 2017CRL OP(MD)/1442/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed two criminal original petitions seeking quashing of FIRs registered under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 506(II) IPC. The court quashed the proceedings after parties from the same village reached a compromise through village elders, finding no useful purpose in keeping the matters pending.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in Crime Nos. 276 and 275 of 2016 on the file of the First Respondent in respect of all the accused are hereby quashed.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.03.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.1442 and 1502 of 2017

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1442 of 2017: 1.Govindarajan 2.Balamurugan 3.Balamani : Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 -vs1.State Rep. by, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk Police Station, Sivagangai District. ...1^st Respondent/Complainant 2.Arumugam ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1502 of 2017: 1.Arumugam 2.Velmurugan 3.Nagalingam 4.Vijaya : Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 vs. State rep. by 1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk Police Station, Sivagangai District Crime No.275 of 2016. ...1^st Respondent/Complainant 2.Govindharajan ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶7

Common Prayer: Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Crime Nos.276 and 275 of 2016 respectively, on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.

¶8

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1442 of 2017: For Petitioners : Mr.P.Muthusamy For Respondent No.1 : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent No.2 : Mr.C.Saravanan

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1502 of 2017:

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Saravanan

¶13

For Respondent No.1 : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent No.2 : Mr.P.Muthusamy

¶14

COMMON ORDER

¶15

On the complaint lodged by one Govindharajan, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.275 of 2016 on 23.11.2016, under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code against Arumugam and three others. On the complaint lodged by Arumugam, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.276 of 2016 on 23.11.2016 under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code against Govindarajan and two others.

¶16

These two quash petitions have been filed to quash the First Information Reports registered in Crime Nos.276 and 275 of 2016 on the ground that both the parties have arrived at a compromise.

¶17

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.K.Thirunavukkarasu, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk Police Station, Sivagangai District, is present. All the parties are present before this Court and their identifications 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.Thirunavukkarasu, Special SubInspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk Police Station.

¶18

The petitioners and the second respondent in both the petitions have filed a joint compromise memo, wherein, the parties have stated that they belong to the same village and that on the intervention of elders, they have amicably settled all issues.

¶19

Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations levelled in the First Information Reports and since there is no previous case against the petitioners in both the petitions and also in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matters pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings in Crime Nos.276 and 275 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent, in respect of all the accused, are hereby quashed.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petitions are allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The joint compromise memo in both the petitions shall form part of this order.

¶23

sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(Record) /True copy/

¶25

Encl:Xerox copy of Joint Compromise memo in Crl.OP(MD).Nos.1442 and 1502/2017

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

To: 1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶28

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.P.Muthusamy, Advocate SR.No.12708 +1cc to Mr.C.Saravanan, Advocate sR.No.13149

¶30

sml

¶31

sm:PM-PN:15/03/2017:2P/5C

¶32

Common Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.1442 and 1502 of 2017

¶33

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

Govindarajan v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindarajan 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

M/S. India Cements Ltd. Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

C.Chokalingam Vs Junior Engineer /O &M/Town

C.Sivasubramanian Vs Tneb, Rep by Its Chief

Chinnapillai Vs the Inspector of Police

Balamurugan Vs State Rep by

Periyasamy, Vs the Deputy Superintendent of