Allowed

Parimanam v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/2293/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed criminal proceedings in Cr.No.240 of 2013 filed under Sections 294(b), 324, 326, and 506 IPC against petitioners. The Madurai Bench allowed the Writ Petition based on an amicable settlement and a signed Joint Compromise Memo between the accused and the complainant, finding no useful purpose in keeping the matter pending.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.240 of 2013 quashed in toto; Joint Compromise Memo attached to the order.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 26.02.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2293 of 2018

¶7

1.Parimanam

¶8

2.Peter

¶9

3.Edwin

¶10

4.Robert ... Petitioners/ Accused

¶11

Nos. 1 to 4

¶12

-Vs-

¶13

The State through

¶14

The Sub Inspector of Police,

¶15

Manachanallur Police Station,

¶16

Trichy District.

¶17

(Cr.No.240 of 2013)

¶18

... Respondent/Complainant

¶19

Albert Velankanni ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶20

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records in Cr.No.240 of 2013 pending on the file 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.Ganapathi Subramanian For 1^st Respondent : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl.side) For 2^nd Respondent : Mrs.K.Amutha Devi

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire records in Cr.No.240 of 2013 pending on the file 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶24

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

¶25

3.The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.240 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2013. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294

¶26

¶27

(b), 324, 326 and 506(i) of IPC.

¶28

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 proceedings in Crime No.240 of 2013 on the file 1^st respondent against the accused Nos.1 to 4.

¶29

5.The parties are 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.

¶30

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 proceedings in Crime No.240 of 2013 on the file 1^st respondent, against the accused Nos.1 to 4, is quashed in toto . The Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

¶31

7.Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar (RTI)

¶34

/True Copy/

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

Encl.: Xerox copy of Compromise Memo

¶37

¶38

The Sub Inspector of Police, Manachanallur Police Station, Trichy District.

¶39

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

¶40

- 1 CC TO Mr.P.GANAPATHI SUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 51566

¶41

DSS

¶42

TE/KK/SAR-4 : 22/03/2018 : 2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 2293 of 2018 26.02.2018

Parimanam v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parimanam v. the Sub 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

B. Suruliraj Vs the Deputy Superintendent

B. Suruliraj Vs the Deputy Superintendent

Parameswari Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Shankara Narayanan Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohamed Mustafa Vs the Inspector of Police

Ahista Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police