Allowed

Murugeswaran v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Oct 2018CRL OP(MD)/3336/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an instant SLP under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed the FIR in Crime No.267 of 2017 upon proof of amicable settlement between the parties via a Joint Memo of Compromise, citing Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime No.267 of 2017 was quashed, and the proceedings against the petitioner were terminated. A sum of Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards costs payable to the Rojavanam Hom

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.10.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P.[MD].No.3336 of 2018

¶3

Murugeswaran .. Petitioner

¶4

vs.

¶5

State represented by The Inspector of Police, M.Kallupatti Police Station, Madurai District.

¶6

Kaniyammal .. Respondents

¶7

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crime No.267 of 2017 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muniyandi For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.V.Ramalingam

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.267 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent, for the alleged offence under Sections 323 376 r/w 511 IPC.

¶11

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

¶12

3.A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court, which have been signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. In order to identify the respective parties they have also produce the copy of the Aadhaar Card is 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.

¶13

4.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017

¶14

9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.267 of

¶15

¶16

¶17

5.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.267 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police, is quashed and the terms of Joint Memo of Compromise shall form part and parcel of this order. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as costs, to the credit of the Rojavanam, Home for aged and Poor (payable in Account No.6481560540, Indian Bank, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai), within a period of two weeks 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.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶20

/True Copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶22

ENCL: Xerox copy of Joint Compromise Memo To

¶23

The Inspector of Police,

¶24

M.Kallupatti Police Station, Madurai District.

¶25

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

¶26

COPY TO

¶27

Rojavanam,

¶28

Home for aged and Poor

¶29

Melur Main Road, Ulaganeri, Madurai.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.S.Muniyandi, Advocate Sr.No.89224 +1cc to Mr.V.Ramalingam, Advocate Sr.No.89591

¶31

¶32

VB/SV/SAR1/31.10.2018/2P/6C

¶33

Crl.O.P.[MD].No.3336 of 2018 08.10.2018

¶34

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

Murugeswaran v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugeswaran 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

N. Senthilkumar Vs S. Veeraganesan

Dhanalakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police

Abishek Vs the Inspector of Police

Sankar @ Banasankar Vs the Inspector of Police

Seeman Vs Nelliammal W/O Seeman

Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police