Dismissed

K.Shankara Narayanan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/1214/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court dismissed two Criminal Original Petitions seeking quashing of FIRs as infructuous. The court observed that further action had been dropped by the police after the parties settled the disputes in Arbitration proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitions are dismissed as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

K.Shankara Narayanan Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 26.02.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1214 and 2154 of 2014 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 1 of 2014

¶7

1.K.Shankara Narayanan

2.R.Seshathiri

3.B.Bharath Kumar

4.D.Somasundaram

5.V.Rajendran

6.B.Arockiaraj

... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 in both petitions

¶14

Vs.

¶15

1.The State rep. by The Inspector of Police,

¶16

District Crime Branch, Pudukottai In Crime No.59 of 2013

¶17

... Respondent/Complainant in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1214 of 2014

¶18

2.Asraf Ali ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1214 of 2014

¶19

1.The State rep. by The Inspector of Police,

¶20

District Crime Branch, Pudukottai In Crime No.1 of 2014 ... Respondent/Complainant in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2154 of 2014

¶21

2.A.B.B.Agency rep. by Anwar Hussain ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2154 of 2014

¶22

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1214 of 2014: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.59 of 2013 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.

¶23

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2154 of 2014: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.1 of 2014 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police and quash the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same.

¶24

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.A.M.Venkatakrishnan

¶26

For Respondent 1 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶27

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶28

These petitions have been filed by the accused persons to quash the FIR in Crime Nos.59/2013 and 1/2014 on the file of the respondent police.

¶29

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that already the matter has been settled between the petitioners and the defacto complainant in the Arbitration proceedings.

¶30

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has submitted that since the parties have settled the issues in the Arbitration Proceedings, further action has been dropped in the aforesaid cases and he has also filed copy of the proceedings of the first respondent.

¶31

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that already the further action has been dropped in the aforesaid Crime numbers these petitions are dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶34

/True copy/

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

¶37

1.The Inspector of Police,

¶38

District Crime Branch, Pudukottai.

¶39

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶40

+2CC TO M/S.A.M.VENKATAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE, SR NOS.51438,51439

¶41

Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1214 and 2154 of 2014 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 1 of 2014 26.02.2018

¶42

¶43

MS/SKN-RSK/SAR-3/14.03.2018/2P.5C

¶44

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

K.Shankara Narayanan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Shankara Narayanan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Suruliraj Vs the Deputy Superintendent

B. Suruliraj Vs the Deputy Superintendent

Parameswari Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mohamed Mustafa Vs the Inspector of Police

Parimanam Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ahista Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police