Allowed

Arumugam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC29 Oct 2018CRL OP(MD)/17445/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the Crl.O.P. and quashed the FIR in Crime No.409 of 2017 insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The Court held that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the FIR pending despite the offences being non-compoundable, as parties had amicably settled the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the FIR in Crime No.409 of 2017 insofar as the petitioner is concerned based on amicable settlement.

Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.10.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶3

Crl.O.P[MD]No.17445 of 2017 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.11451 of 2017

¶4

Arumugam : Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs.

¶5

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Valliyoor Police Station, Tirunelveli. : 1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶6

2.Irudayanathan : 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶7

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the entire records relating to the FIR in Crime No.409 of 2017 on the file of the 1^st respondent and to quash the same insofar as petitioner is concerned.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik For R-1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate [Crl. side] For R-2 : Ms.N.Ramesh Arumugam

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.409 of 2017 on the file of the 1^st respondent and to quash the same insofar as petitioner is concerned for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003.

¶11

2.The case is still in the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶12

3.A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The parties were also present before the Court and they were identified by Mr.C.Murugan, Special Sub Inspector of Police 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶13

¶14

4.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.409 of 2017.

¶15

5.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the First Information Report in Crime No.409 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed insofar as this petitioner is concerned and the terms of Joint Compromise Memo shall form part and parcel of this order. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- [Rupees Two Thousand only] as costs, to the credit of “District Siddha Medical Officer, CCRI, Periyakulam” (payable in Account No.10767823177, SBI, Periyakulam), within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry. Consequently, Crl.MP(MD)No.11451 of 2017 is closed.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶17

/True Copy/

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶19

Encl: Xerox copy of Joint Compromise Memo

¶20

¶21

1.The Inspector of Police, Valliyoor Police Station, Tirunelveli.

¶22