Allowed

Mohamed Nainar, (Wrongly v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Nov 2018CRL OP(MD)/19564/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The petitioners and the de facto complainant filed a memo of compromise. Recording the same, the Court held it to be a fit case for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Crime No.241 of 2018 against petitioners/A1 to A5 quashed; connected Misc. Petition closed.

Mohamed Nainar, (Wrongly Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.11.2018

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19564 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8883 of 2018

1.Mohamed Nainar

2.Mydeen Khan

3.Abdul Agees

4.Jahir Usain

5.Anwar Hussain

...Petitioners/A1 to A5

¶11

Vs.

¶12

State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kadayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.241 of 2018)

¶13

..Respondent No.1/Complainant

¶14

Shahul Hameed

¶15

...2^nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant

¶16

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining in Crime No.241 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as against these petitioners.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.Sikkandar Ali

¶18

For R-1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate, (Crl. Side)

¶19

For R-2 : Mr.N.M.Shajahan

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition has been to quash the criminal proceedings in Crime No.241 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent as against these petitioners.

¶22

2.Today, when the matter was taken up, the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent are present and they have filed a memo of compromise stating that they have compromised the matter and the de facto complainant do not want to pursue the matter against the petitioners and he has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. The compromise memo filed by the petitioners and second respondent / de facto complainant is recorded.

¶23

3.Considering the fact that they have compromised the matter and recording the compromise memo filed by the parties, this Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is of the view that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶24

¶25

4.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.241 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent against the petitioners/A1 to A5 is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(RECORDS)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶30

Encl: Xerox Copy of Compromise Memo

¶31

¶32

The Inspector of Police, Kadayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶33

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

¶34

KM/BK/SAR2/21.12.2018/2P/3C

¶35

Crl.O.P(MD)No.19564 of 2018 01.11.2018

¶36

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

Mohamed Nainar, (Wrongly v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Nainar, (Wrongly 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.Manivasagam Vs R.Sundarakumar

John Vs the Inspector of Police

Y. Nelson Pushparaj Vs M. Gomathisankar

Shahul Hameed Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthukumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Thiruvengadam Vs the Sub Inspector of Police