Allowed

Jobu @ Ramkumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/2191/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition to quash a charge sheet. Relying on a voluntary Joint Compromise Memo between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by pending the matter and quashed the proceedings in toto.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet in P.R.C.No.4 of 2017 is quashed in toto.

Jobu @ Ramkumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 21.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 2191 of 2018

¶6

1.Jobu @ Ramkumar

¶7

2.Christopher 3.Kandasamy

¶8

...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The State Represented by Inspector of Police, Aruppukkottai Town Police Station, Aruppukkottai,

¶11

Virudhunagar District.

¶12

(in Crime No.390 of 2015)

¶13

...1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶14

M.Subbusamy ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶15

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in connection with the impugned charge sheet in P.R.C.No.4 of 2017 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioners : Ms.R.Dharani For R1 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R2 : Mr.R.Amarnath

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in connection with the impugned charge sheet in P.R.C.No.4 of 2017 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and quash the same.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

3.The petitioners are accused No. 1 to 3 in Crime No.390 of

¶22

¶23

Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 448 IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act and after completing investigation charge sheet has been filed in P.R.C.No.4 of 2017 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai.

¶24

4.It appears that the petitioners and the second respondent, namely, the de-facto complainant have settled their dispute amicably out of Court and they have also entered into a compromise, on the advise of elders and their relatives. A Joint Compromise Memo, signed by both parties, in the presence of their respective counsel, is also produced before this Court. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent, has no objection for quashing the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.4 of 2017 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai.

¶25

5.The parties 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.

¶26

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 P.R.C.No.4 of 2017 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, is quashed in toto . The Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

¶27

7.Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

Encl.: Xerox copy of Compromise Memo

¶32

¶33

The Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

The Inspector of Police, Aruppukkottai Town Police Station, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶37

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

¶38

- 1 CC TO Mr.R.AMARNATH, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 50344 LS

¶39

TE/KKR/SAR-3 : 02/03/2018 : 3P/5C

¶40

Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 2191 of 2018 21.02.2018

¶41

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

Jobu @ Ramkumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jobu @ Ramkumar 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

Kalai Arasi Vs the Inspector of Police

Hakkim Deen Vs the Commissioner of Police

Subramanian Vs the Inspector of Police

Stephen, Vs the Inspector of Police

M.K.Kannan Vs M.Gopika

Mr.R.Vivesh Vs Mr.S.P.Ramamurthy