Allowed

T.S.Ramesh, M/a 48 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC21 Mar 2018CRL OP/8419/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Cr.O.P. No. 8419 of 2018, the single judge allowed the petition to quash criminal proceedings in Crime No. 1072 of 2014. The court accepted that the petitioner and defacto complainant had amicably resolved the dispute and entered into a compromise supported by affidavit evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was allowed and the proceedings in Crime No. 1072 of 2014 were quashed.

T.S.Ramesh, M/a 48 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :21.03.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.8419 of 2018

¶6

T.s.Ramesh ..Petitioner/Accused-2

¶7

1.The State represented by its The Inspector of Police, B-2, Esplanade Police station, Chennai – 600 004. ( Crime No. 1072/2014) ..1st Respondent/Complainant 2. Mr.O.H.M. Mirsha Khan ..2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in Crime No.1072 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Sunder Mohan For Respondent 1 : Mr. C.Raghavan Government Advocate(Crl side) For Respondent 2 : Mr. I.Abdul Basith

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

These petitions have been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.1072 of 2014, on the file of the first respondent police.

¶12

2.Pending Criminal Original Petitions, the defacto complainant and the petitioner have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves and accordingly, they have entered into a compromise.

¶13

Today, the defacto complainant and the petitioner are personally present before this Court and they have been identified by their counsel on record. The counsel for the parties have submitted the photo copies of the Identy cards of the parties:

¶14

i) in respect of petitioner T.S.Ramesh, Aadhar card https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bearing no. 4326 6830 0602 and

¶15

ii) in respect of defacto complainant Aadhar card bearing no. 5921 3085 7017 and the same were also recorded.

¶16

4.The defacto complainant filed an affidavit dated 21.03.2018 to the effect that he has no objection, if the present Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶17

In view of the affidavit filed by an defacto complainant and taking into account the compromise entered into between the parties, the proceedings in Crime No.1072 of 2014, on the file of first respondent police.

¶18

The affidavit, dated 21.03.2018 filed by the defacto complainant is hereby recorded. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The affidavit, dated 21.03.2018 shall form part of the order.

¶19

(Affidavit dated 21.3.2018 xerox copy enclosed) Sd/Assistant Registrar(Audit) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar smn To 1.The Inspector of Police, B-2, Esplanade Police station, Chennai – 600 004. ( Crime No. 1072/2014) 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.8419 of 2018

¶21

SVI(CO) EU(25/04/2018 )

¶22

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

T.S.Ramesh, M/a 48 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.S.Ramesh, M/a 48 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

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

P.Iyappan, M/a 39 Years Vs the State Rep.by

P.Kumarasamy, M/A.72 Years Vs the State Rep.by

P.Diwakar M/45 Vs the Inspector of Police

Mr.N.P.Shyam Kumar, M/34 Vs the State Representation by

A.Vadivel, MALE/66 Vs the Superintendent of Police

Tamilselvi, Vs The District Collector