Allowed

Jahir Hussian v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC25 Oct 2018CRL OP(MD)/18514/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the charge sheet in a pending trial case after a joint compromise memo was executed by the petitioners and the second respondent. Relying on Supreme Court guidelines, the Court held that keeping a non-compoundable case pending served no useful purpose post-settlement.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet in C.C.No.266 of 2009 quashed; terms of Joint Memo form part of the order.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.10.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P.[MD].No.18514 of 2018

1.Jahir Hussian

2.Selvam

3.Thennarasu

4.Kannan

5.Mytheen Shariff

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.State through the Inspector of Police, Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai City. (In C.C.No.266 of 2009) ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant 2.M.Rabeekraja ... 2^nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records of Charge Sheet in C.C.No.266 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and quash the same as illegal.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah

¶13

For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate [Crl. Side] For R2 : Mr.M.Kaushikan

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.266 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

¶16

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

¶17

3.A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court, which have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. In order to identify the respective parties, 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 come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶18

4.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending. Even though, the offences involved are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai

¶19

¶20

Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the charge sheet in C.C.No.266 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

¶21

5.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the charge sheet in C.C.No.266 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, is quashed and the terms of Joint Memo of Compromise shall form part and parcel of this order. Each of the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs, to the credit of the Chief Justice Relief Fund (payable in Accounts Section of the High Court Registry), 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.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AD-I)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶25

ENCL: XEROX COPY OF JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO

¶26

¶27

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

¶28

2.The Inspector of Police, Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai City. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.

¶29

COPY TO

¶30

1.The Chief Justice Relief Fund (payable in Accounts Section of the High Court Registry) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶31

2.The Section Officer, Accounts Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶32

1 CC TO Mr.S.M.JINNAH , ADVOCATE IN SR No.92172.

¶33

MYR

¶34

DS SKN SAR3 22 11 2018 2P 7C Crl.O.P.[MD].No.18514 of 2018

¶35

25.10.2018

¶36

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

Jahir Hussian v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahir Hussian 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Raja, M/a 75 Years, Vs S.Sunthara Vadivu, F/a 34 Yrs

M. Indrani, W/O.Mahalingam, Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.S.Xavier, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Anbumani Vs the Inspector of Police

Shanmugavel Thevar Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Pavithra, Vs the Inspector of Police