Allowed

Amudha v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Dec 2018CRL OP/17385/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court found parties had reached an amicable settlement prior to trial and quashed the First Information Report, citing Parbathbhai Ahir guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.204 of 2013 quashed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Amudha Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 17.12.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.17385 of 2015

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶8

Amudha ... Petitioner/5^th Accused

¶9

Vs. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Sirkali All Women Police Station, Sirkali, Nagapattinam District. (Ref. Crime No.10 of 2012 dated 29.09.2012)

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.204 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali, Nagapattinam District.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Surendar For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶13

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.204 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali, Nagapattinam District pursuant to the compromise arrived at by the parties.

¶14

The case is still in the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶15

3.An affidavit of the defacto complainant has been filed before this Court. The parties were also present before the Court and they have also produced the copies of the Aadhaar Card which are made part of the record. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an

¶16

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

¶17

amicable settlement between themselves.

¶18

Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the First Information Report in C.C.No.204 of 2013.

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.204 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali, Nagapattinam District is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dss
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali,
Nagapattinam District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Sirkali All Women Police Station,
Sirkali, Nagapattinam District.

¶21

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.17385 of 2015

¶23

VGI (CO) GMY(09/01/2019)

¶24

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

Amudha v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amudha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Sri Rengas Avitta Garments Vs Mrs.R.Indira, Aged About 39

S.M.Naina Mohamed, Vs Abdul Raheem

G.Gurusamy Vs the Director General of Police,Chennai

Haridas Vs State Rep by

Senguttuvan Vs State Rep. by

Mr.Anil Pathak Vs M/S.Larsen and Toubro