Allowed

K.K.S.V.T. Subburaj v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Jul 2017CRL OP(MD)/14527/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench quashed criminal proceedings in C.C.No.129 of 2014 EC No. 129, Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Relying on a Joint Compromise Memo dated 10.07.2017, the court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending and allowed the criminal original petition under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original petition allowed; criminal proceedings in C.C.No.129 of 2014 quashed in toto; connected Miscellaneous petitions closed.

K.K.S.V.T. Subburaj Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.07.2017 CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶4

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14527 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

¶5

K.K.S.V.T.Subburaj ... Petitioner/Accused 2

¶6

-Vs-

¶7

The Inspector of Police, Aruppukkottai Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District,

¶8

(In Crime No.100 of 2013) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶9

J.M.Gose ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records relating to the impugned final report, dated 29.12.2013, made in C.C.No.129 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, and to quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Kathiravan For R-1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate(Crl.side). For R-2 : Mr.G.Ravi

¶12

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Criminal Original petition is filed to call for records relating to the impugned final report, dated 29.12.2013, made in C.C.No.129 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, and to quash the same.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶16

On the basis of complaint given by the second respondent, against the first accused, a case was registered in Crime No.100 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent for the offences under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. After the registration of First Information Report, the first respondent has proceeded to file

¶17

¶18

final report, by arraying the petitioner herein as second accused in C.C.No.129 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai.

¶19

It appears that at the advise of the elders and friends,

¶20

the petitioner and second respondent have agreed to compromise the matter out of Court. A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 10.07.2017, is also filed. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the defacto complainant, namely, second respondent has given his consent to quash the entire proceedings culminating in C.C.No.129 of 2014 in favour of the petitioner as well as the first accused.

¶21

The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed in the Joint Compromise Memo on their own will and volition. The identities of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identities of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) through the first respondent police.

¶22

Having regard to the agreement made between the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. As per the Compromise Memo signed by the parties, the defacto complainant, namely, the second respondent has agreed to quash the proceedings even against the first accused. Hence the criminal proceedings culminating in C.C.No.129 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, is quashed in toto and the Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

¶23

Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (AD-II)

¶26

/True copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

The Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai.

¶30

The Inspector of Police, Aruppukkottai Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District,

¶31

+1 CC to Mr.G.Mariappan, Advocate, SR No. 64516.

¶32

PMU

¶33

PSM/KP/SAR1/20.07.2017/2P/4C

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14527 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 11.07.2017

K.K.S.V.T. Subburaj v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.S.V.T. Subburaj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rengammal, Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Nagaraj Vs the Commissioner of Police

C.Rajathangam Vs the Superintendent of Police

D.Sureshkumar, Vs the Inspector of Police

N.S.Kalirajan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Micheal Lenis, Vs the Inspector of Police