The High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the First Information Report and charge sheet in a non-compoundable case due to an amicable settlement reached by the parties, relying on Supreme Court guidelines.
Quashed the First Information Report in C.C.No.204 of 2013 and dismissed the criminal proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 17.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.22999 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Surendar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
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.
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 amicable settlement between themselves.
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.
Crl.O.P.No.22999 of 2015
VGI(CO) GMY(09/01/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether initiative can be taken by this Court to quash the proceedings at the trial stage in view of the compromise arrived at by the parties.
Whether any useful purpose would be served in keeping the First Information Report pending in view of the amicable settlement between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of GujrathExplained¶15
2017 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Haridas
Kalaiselvi
H.Pari
State
N. Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
N. Anand Venkatesh
Parties & counsel
