Allowed

Rameshkumar, v. Kalaniyarani @ Devi

Madras HC21 Jun 2017CRL RC(MD)/190/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. by Rameshkumar against an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ramanathapuram. The court set aside the impugned order due to an amicable settlement and a Joint Compromise Memo filed by the parties, granting the petitioner's prayer to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision was allowed; the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, in M.C.No.1 of 2016 dated 23.09.2016, was set aside.

Rameshkumar, Vs Kalaniyarani @ Devi — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.06.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.BASHEER AHAMED

¶6

Crl.RC(MD)No.190 of 2017

¶7

Rameshkumar : Petitioner/Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Kalanjiyarani @ Devi

¶10

Minor Janani (Rep.through her Mother / R1) : Respondents/Petitioners

¶11

Prayer: Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District in M.C.No.1 of 2016, dated 23.09.2016 and set aside the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Revision is filed praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District in M.C.No.1 of 2016, dated 23.09.2016 and set aside the same.

¶15

The petitioner and the 1^st respondent are present before this Court along with their respective counsels. The 2^nd respondent, who is the minor daughter of the petitioner herein, is in custody of the first respondent herein.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents would submit that, since the parties have settled their disputes amicably, the first respondent herein, does not want to continue the proceedings against the petitioner herein. Hence, the petitioner and the respondents are seeking indulgence of this Court to record the compromise and allow the Revision by setting aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District in M.C.No.1 of 2016, dated 23.09.2016.

¶17

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced the original I.D. Card of the petitioner, who is working in Police Department, bearing Rank PC-502, and the counsel for the second respondent has also produced the original Aadhaar Card, bearing No.671427380356, for her identification.

¶19

The Court heard the submissions of the respective parties, who appeared before this Court along with their respective counsels and their identification is also verified by the respective counsels.

¶20

Since the parties have settled their disputes amicably and they have also filed a ' Joint Compromise Memo', dated 20.06.2017 to that effect, this Court is inclined to allow the Revision.

¶21

Accordingly, the present Revision is allowed, in terms of the 'Joint Compromise Memo', dated 20.06.2017 and the the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District in M.C.No.1 of 2016, dated 23.09.2016, is set aside. The 'Joint Compromise Memo, dated 20.06.2016, shall form part of the order.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (T&P)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

Encl.: Xerox copy of Compromise Memo

¶27

¶28

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶29

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

¶30

The Record Keeper, Criminal Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶31

1 CC TO Mr.P.SARAVANAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 61323

¶32

MPK

¶33

TE/SV-MMS/SAR-III : 29/06/2017 : 2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

Crl.RC(MD)No.190 of 2017

¶35

Dated:-21.06.2017

Rameshkumar, v. Kalaniyarani @ Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshkumar, v. Kalaniyarani @ Devi

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

Pavunuthai Vs the Executive Magistrate/

M.Balamurugan, Vs B.Muthuselvi

Selvakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Veeramuthu Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Poomalai Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

V.Subramani, Vs State Rep.by