Allowed

Muthukumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Nov 2018CRL OP(MD)/19567/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC prayed for quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court allowed the petition upon recording a compromise memo filed by the parties, holding it a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.156 of 2015 against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2,3,5,6 and 7 are quashed.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.11.2018

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19567 of 2018

¶6

1.Muthukumar

¶7

2.Ganeshkumar

¶8

3.Mohammed Jaleel

¶9

4.Chellam

¶10

5.Mohan @ Mohanasundaram ... Petitioners/

¶11

Accused Nos.2,3,5,6&7

¶12

Vs.

¶13

State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kundrakudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶14

(Crime No.122 of 2014) ... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶15

Selvakumar ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶16

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.156 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi and quash the same as against the petitioners / accused.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Aju Tagore For R-1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate, (Crl. Side) For R-2 : Mr.A.Arputharaj

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition has been to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.156 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi as against the petitioners / accused.

¶20

2.Today, when the matter was taken up, the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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

¶21

¶22

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

¶24

and recording the compromise memo filed by the parties, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶25

4.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.156 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi against the petitioners /A-2,3,5,6 and 7 is hereby quashed.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶29

Encl.: Xerox copy of Compromise Memo

¶30

¶31

1.The Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.

¶32

The Inspector of Police, Kundrakudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶33

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

¶34

- 1 CC TO Mr.S.SABBANI KARBOORA JOTHI, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 93995 SM TE/RSK/SAR-2 : 10/12/2018 : 2P/5C

¶35

Crl.O.P(MD)No.19567 of 2018 01.11.2018

¶36

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

Muthukumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthukumar 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

Mohamed Nainar, (Wrongly Vs the Inspector of Police

Shahul Hameed Vs the Inspector of Police

Thiruvengadam Vs the Sub Inspector of Police