Allowed

Malaimurugan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Apr 2018CRL OP(MD)/3858/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. Petitioners and de facto complainants entered into a joint compromise memo. Court allowed the petition, quashed proceedings, and directed payment of cost to the Mediation Centre.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings in P.R.C.No.7/2016 against petitioners insofar as they are concerned; directed payment of Rs. 500/- each to Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

Malaimurugan Vs the Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.04.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR Crl.OP.(MD)No.3858 of 2018

¶4

1.Malaimurugan

¶5

2.Raja 3.Murugakani

¶6

4.Pandiarajan

¶7

5.Duraipandi

¶8

6.Alagarsamy

¶9

7.Pitchaipandi

¶10

8.Muniyandi

¶11

9.Senthoorpandi

¶12

10.Karuppadurai

¶13

11.Malairajan

¶14

12.Rajendran

¶15

13.Balamurugan

¶16

14.Malaimurugan

¶17

15.Ramar ...Petitioners/Accused No.4, 5, 7 to 11, 13, 15, 19, 20, 22, 24 to 26

¶18

Vs.

¶19

1.State represented by The Inspector of Police,

¶20

Elanchembur Police Station,

¶21

Ramanathapuram District. ...Respondent/Complainant

¶22

2.Veeramakali ...Respondent/defacto complainant

¶23

3.Gurusamy ... Respondent/Injured

¶24

Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in PRC NO.7/2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur and quash the same against the petitioners/accused Nos.4,5,7 to 11, 13, 15, 19, 20, 22, 24 to 26 herein.

¶25

For Petitioners :Mr.R.Venkateswaran For 1^st Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ impugned proceedings in PRC NO.7/2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur, against the petitioners/accused Nos.4,5,7 to 11, 13, 15, 19, 20, 22, 24 to 26.

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

3.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, he defacto complainant is present and the accused are also present before this Court. The identifications of the accused were also verified by this Court.

¶31

4.Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case was registered in Crime No.26 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 336 and 307 IPC and 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, r/w 149 IPC. After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur, in P.R.C.No.7 of 2016, against the 26 accused. The petitioners are accused Nos.4, 5, 7 to 11, 13, 15, 19, 20, 22, 24 to 26.

¶32

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that both the Petitioners and the de-facto complainant had entered into compromise.

¶33

6.It appears that on the advise of the elders and friends, the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 in this case have agreed into a compromise. A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 05.03.2018, signed by the both parties, in the presence of their respective counsel, is also filed to that effect. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second and the third respondents, have given their consent to quash the entire proceedings in P.R.C.No.7 of 2016 in order to maintain peace.

¶34

7.In view of the above, the impugned proceedings quashed insofar as the petitioners/ accused No. 4, 5, 7 to 11, 13, 15, 19, 20, 22, 24 to 26 are concerned, the criminal original petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to pay the cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, attached to this Bench, under the head of the Infrastructure Fund, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Joint Compromise Memo shall form part of the order.

¶35

Sd/

¶36

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶37

/True copy/

¶38

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶39

¶40

1.The Inspector of Police,

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Elanchembur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

Copy to:

¶45

The Co-ordinator, Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶46

+1cc to Mr.R.VENKATESWARAN, Advocate, SR.No.60544

¶47

Crl.OP.(MD)No.3858 of 2018 09.04.2018

¶48

DSS/NS

¶49

KK/SV MMS/08.05.2018/SAR-1/3P-5C

¶50

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

Malaimurugan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malaimurugan 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

S.Venkatesan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Kandasamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

M. Ashok Kumar Vs the District Collector

M. Santhanam Vs the Superintendent of Police

Thiraviyam, Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Kalvikkarasi, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police