Allowed

Ahmed v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Nov 2018CRL OP/9643/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC. The de-facto complainant submitted an affidavit stating the dispute was resolved via compromise and possession was handed over. The Court held the FIR should be quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioner, allowing the petitioner's acquittal, but directed the police to continue investigation against other accused.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.10 of 2014 quashed insofar as it concerns the petitioner; investigation to proceed against other accused.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.11.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.OP.No.9643 of 2015

¶6

Ahmed ...Petitioner/Accused No.3 Vs.

¶7

State rep.by The Inspector of Police Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. (Crime No.10 of 2014)

¶8

John Peter, S/o.John Robert No.A-10, S.P.Nagar II, K.S.Garden, Edayarpalayam Road, Goundam Palayam, Coimbatore.

¶9

... Respondents/Defacto Complainant

¶10

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to Crime No.10 of 2014, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore and to quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran

¶12

For R1 : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2014, pending on the file of the first respondent.

¶15

The FIR has been registered as against four accused persons, in which, the petitioner is the third accused.

¶16

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

¶17

The petitioner is the subsequent purchaser from A1 and A2 and who are said to have committed the offence.

¶18

Pending the Criminal Original petition, the parties have entered into a compromise.

¶19

The de-facto complainant has filed an affidavit and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:-

¶20

''I submit that subsequent to the registration of the FIR the petitioner herein approached me for settlement and he has agreed to give up his right in respect of my property which was created under the fabricated sale and the possession also handed over to me. Therefore we have amicably settled the issue in respect of the above said property. In view of such supervening circumstances I am not interested in proceeding the criminal case further and I have decided to put an end to the entire proceedings. I submit that I have no objection in quashing the FIR pending before the 1^st respondent against the petitioner.

¶21

I submit that this affidavit is being filed by me in the above Crl.OP. on my own free and volition and there is no threat or coercion in filing the above affidavit. I submit that this affidavit may be treated in support of the above Crl.OP. and to quash the same.

¶22

I therefore pray this Hon'ble Court to treat this affidavit as supporting affidavit in the above quash petition and to quash the Crime No.10 of 2014 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special. Cell, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore and thus render Justice."

¶23

In view of the above, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the FIR pending, insofar this petitioner is concerned.

¶24

Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent police, is hereby quashed, insofar this petitioner is concerned.

¶25

It is made clear that the first respondent shall proceed further with the investigation, insofar as the other accused persons are concerned.

¶26

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

¶27

In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶28

s/d-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶30

True Copy

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶32

msrm/raja

¶33

¶34

The Inspector of Police Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. (Crime No.10 of 2014)

¶35

The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶36

+1 CC to Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi, Advocate sr 80723.

¶37

Crl.OP.No.9643 of 2015

¶38

KJ(CO) SP(11/12/2018)

¶39

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

Ahmed v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmed 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Arulnathan Vs the State Rep. by Its

C.Ravindran Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police

Arun Jain Vs Ashok Tex

K.S.Sivakumar Vs the State of Tamilnadu

D.Kantilal Vs the State Represented by

Ponmani Vs State Rep by Its