Allowed

Jesiy Jhonsi @ Jesi Jancy v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/1735/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed a criminal petition seeking quashing of an FIR based on a valid Joint Compromise Memo signed by the accused and the de-facto complainant, dismissing all pending proceedings in the case.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime No.172 of 2017 was quashed in toto, and the Joint Compromise Memo was attached to the order.

Jesiy Jhonsi @ Jesi Jancy Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.02.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1735 of 2018

¶7

1.Jesiy Jhonsi @ Jesi Jancy

¶8

2.Muthupandi @ Suvi Shesa Muthu

¶9

3.Yovaan @ Raja Youvan

¶10

4.Bilasan @ Pleasant Selvakumar ..Petitioners/

¶11

Accused Nos.1 to 4

¶12

-Vs-

¶13

The State Represented by its Inspector of Police, Moolakaraipatty Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

(Crime No.172 of 2017)

¶15

... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶16

2.Ponraj ... 2^nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

¶17

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.172 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer

¶19

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

¶20

For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.V.Karuna

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.172 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,

¶24

¶25

learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶26

3.The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.172 of 2017. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, against the petitioners, the case was registered in Crime No.172 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 (1) of TNPPDL Act.

¶27

4.It appears that on the advice of friends and elders, the parties have entered into compromise and a Joint Compromise Memo, signed by both parties, in the presence of their respective counsel, is also filed. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent has agreed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.172 of 2017.

¶28

5.The parties have appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed the Joint Compromise Memo on their own free will and volition. The identity of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identity of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) through the first respondent police.

¶29

6.Having regard to the specific terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence the First Information Report in Crime No.172 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed in toto. The Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

¶30

7.Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(Crl side)

¶33

/True Copy/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

Encl: Xerox copy of compromise Memo

¶36

¶37

The Inspector of Police,

¶38

Moolakaraipatty Police Station,

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

1 cc TO Mr.T.A.Ebenezer , Advocate in SR No. 48484 cp AE/GT/SAR2/13.03.2018/3P/4C

¶43

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1735 of 2018 13.02.2018

¶44

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

Jesiy Jhonsi @ Jesi Jancy v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jesiy Jhonsi @ Jesi Jancy 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

Chandru Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Syed Abuthahir, Vs the Inspector of Police

Manoj @ Monojkumar, Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthupappa Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Marimuthupandiyan Vs the Inspector of Police

Ponraj Vs the Inspector of Police