Allowed

M.S.K.Ramesh Raj v. State Rep by

Madras HC5 Oct 2018CRL OP/18378/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed the final report in a criminal case involving assault and property damage. The dispute was found to be personal in nature, and good will had been restored between the parties, rendering further proceedings useless.

What did the court decide?

The final report in C.C.No.21 of 2010 was quashed; the Criminal Original Petition was allowed and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

M.S.K.Ramesh Raj Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.10.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.18378 of 2010 and

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶7

1.M.S.K.Ramesh Raj,
S/o.Kuppusamy.
2.D.Tamilrasaan,
S/o.Duraikannu.
3.N.Jeeva,
S/o.Nathan. ... Petitioners/Accused 1, 2 & 4
Vs.
State rep. by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
E-3, Minjur Police Station,
Minjur,
Thiruvallur District.
[Cr.No.353 of 2009]. ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and
to quash the final report filed in C.C.No.21 of 2010 on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Ponneri.
[Amended the C.C.No. as per the order of this Court dated
17.09.2010 in M.P.No.3 of 2010]

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Soundar Vijay Arul Ram For Respondent : Mrs.V.Saratha Devi, Government Advocate [Crl.Side] O R D E R

¶9

The petitioners herein who are the accused in C.C.No.21 of 2010 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Ponneri for the offences under Sections 341, 294(B), 427 and 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

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

¶11

2.The averements in the charge sheet is that on 04.06.2009 at about 03.30 p.m. near Pattamandhiri burial ground, when the driver namely Sankar was driving Ford Endeavour car bearing Registration No.TN 20 AB 1000 from Chennai to Minjur was stopped by the petitioners, when the driver of the vehicle attempted to proceed, the petitioners threw stones on the vehicle. Further, the petitioners herein had damaged the rear glass of the car and threatened him by saying that they will not leave the owner of the car and they will kill him. It is also seen that there have been allegations and counter allegations between the petitioners and the defacto-complainant.

¶12

3.The learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] had submitted a letter dated 26.09.2018 stating that the defacto-complainant and the petitioners are relations and the dispute between them had been resolved and thereafter, they have been on a very well terms and had also made a request to withdraw the complaint.

¶13

4.This Court feels that the dispute seems to be of personal in nature and now good under standing arrived at between the petitioners and the defacto- complainant. In view of the above no useful purpose would serve by keeping the case pending.

¶14

5.Considering the above, the final report filed against the petitioners in C.C.No.21 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Ponneri is quashed and this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True Copy//

¶16

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶17

¶18

¶19

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri.

¶20

2.Do Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur.

¶21

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

¶22

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, E-3, Minjur Police Station, Minjur, Thiruvallur District.

¶23

[Cr.No.353 of 2009].

¶24

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.18378 of 2010

¶26

SV(CO)
GN(24/12/2018)

¶27

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

M.S.K.Ramesh Raj v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.K.Ramesh Raj v. State Rep by

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

D.Rajkumar Vs Mrs.Monisha @Arthi

Premalatha Vs G.v.Chenchaiah

N.Kisan Vs B.Viswas Jadhav

Dr.S.Kalaikumar Vs G.Venkatesh

Zeus Pharmaceuticals Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

M/S.Vinayak Manu Trade Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Rep by