Allowed

Mohamed Abbas v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Apr 2017CRL OP(MD)/1967/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench quashed criminal proceedings in two cases upon receipt of verified individual and joint compromise memos signed by the accused and defacto complainant regarding disputes settled with village elders.

What did the court decide?

Criminal cases C.C.Nos. 74 of 2013 and 54 of 2012 quashed; petitioners directed to pay Rs.500 each to Rojavanam Homeless & Aged Care Centre.

Mohamed Abbas Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.03.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH CRL.O.P.(MD)Nos.1967 and 1968 of 2017

¶5

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1967 of 2017:

¶6

Mohamed Abbas

¶7

Awrangaship

¶8

Thasthagir

¶9

Ansair

¶10

Buhari

¶11

Mohamed Ithiris

¶12

: Petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

State represented through The Inspector of Police, Vaalinokkam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. Cr.No.60 of 2011.

¶15

Ahamedappa

¶16

: Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to record the compromise reached between the petitioners/accused and the second respondent/defacto complainant and call for the records in C.C.No.74 of 2013 in connection with Crime No.60 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as against the petitioners.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.H.Velavadhas For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent No.2 : Mr.B.Senthil Kumar

¶19

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1968 of 2017:

¶20

Ejaj Ahamed

¶21

Imthivas

¶22

Nivas

¶23

Ahamed Kabir

¶24

: Petitioners Vs.

¶25

State represented through The Inspector of Police, Vaalinokkam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. Cr.No.61 of 2011.

¶26

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

¶27

Thasthagir

¶28

: Respondents

¶29

¶30

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to record the compromise reached between the petitioners/accused and second respondent/defacto complainant and call for the records in C.C.No.54 of 2012 in connection with Crime No.61 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as against the petitioners.

¶31

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Senthilkumar For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent No.2 : Mr.H.Velavadhas

¶32

COMMON ORDER

¶33

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1967 of 2017:

¶34

On the complaint lodged by the second respondent-the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.60 of 2011 and after completing the investigation, has filed a final report in C.C.No.74 of 2013, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Muthukulathoor, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code against eight accused, out of which, six accused are before this Court, for quashing the prosecution on the ground that they have arrived at a compromise. CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1968 of 2017:

¶35

This is the counter case. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.61 of 2011 and after and after completing the investigation, has filed a final report in C.C.No.54 of 2012, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Muthukulathoor, for offences under Sections 341, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code against seven accused, challenging which, four accused are before this Court for quashing the prosecution on the ground that they have arrived at a compromise.

¶36

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.T.Muniasamy, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Vaalinokkam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District, is present in Court. The defacto complainant in both the cases and the petitioners/accused in both the cases are present. 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.T.Muniasamy, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Vaalinokkam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶37

They have filed an individual compromise memo in each case signed by the respective accused and the defacto complainant, wherein they have stated that on the intervention of elders in the Village, they have arrived at a compromise, so as to amicably settle all the disputes.

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

In view of the above, these petitions are allowed and the prosecution in C.C.Nos.74 of 2013 and 54 of 2012 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Muthukulathoor, respectively, is quashed as against all the accused including those who are not before this Court. The joint compromise memo in both the petitions shall form part of this order. However, the petitioners in both the petitions are directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each , to the Rojavanam Homeless & Aged Care Centre, Melur Road, Uthangudi, Madurai, within a period of two weeks from today.

¶41

Post the matter on 06.04.2017 "for reporting

¶42

compliance".

¶43

Sd/Assistant Registrar(C)

¶44

/True Copy/

¶45

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶46

¶47

The Inspector of Police, Vaalinokkam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶48

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

¶49

Copy to

¶50

1.The Rojavanam Homeless and Aged Care Centre, Melur Road, Uthangudi, Madurai.

¶51

2.THE SECTION OFFICER, CRIMINAL SECTION, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶52

Common Order made in CRL.O.P.(MD)Nos.1967 and 1968 of 2017 Dated:- 16.03.2017

¶53

SML

¶54

MS/CM-MSA-SAR 3/24.03.2017/3P-5C

¶55

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

Mohamed Abbas v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Abbas 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

M.a.K.Jahabar Vs S.K.Meera Banu

Anand Vs the Deputy Superintendent

Moses Gabriel, Vs the Inspector of Police

V.S.Nisha Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Suresh Vs Kavitha

Muthuramalingam Vs the Inspector of Police