Allowed

Ramachandran v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Apr 2018CRL OP(MD)/4393/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Miscellanea Order petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR registered for matrimonial offences. The court was satisfied after verifying the identities of the parties and their submission of a joint compromise memo, ruling that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in Crime No.60 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police against the petitioners are quashed.

Ramachandran Vs the Inspector of Police — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.04.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶4

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.4393 of 2018

¶5

1.Ramachandran 2.Mohini ... Petitioners

¶6

Vs. 1.State, represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam Madurai District. (Crime No.60 of 2017) ... 1^st Respondent/Complainant 2.Karthigarani .. 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶7

Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.60 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Maheswaran For R1 : Mr.A.Robinson Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R2 : Mr.V.Manikandan

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

On the complaint lodged by one Karthigarani, the second respondent herein, the first respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.60 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners herein, for quashing the same, the petitioners and the defacto complainant are before this Court on the ground that they have arrived at a compromise.

¶11

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the defacto complainant/second respondent herein and the petitioners are present in the Court and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and the respective counsel of the petitioners and the second respondent.

¶12

The petitioners and the second respondent have filed a joint compromise memo, wherein, it is stated as follows:

¶13

"3. The petitioners further submit that the entire https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issue resolves around the dispute which is purely of matrimonial dispute in nature. The petitioners and the

¶14

¶15

defacto complainant settled the issue amicably and they were not coerced or compelled by anybody for compromise.

¶16

4.The petitioners as well as the second respondent arrived compromise and amicably settled the issue with the help of elders and friends. The 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant will not pursue her remedy for the same cause of action and she has no objection for quashing Crime No.60 of 2017 on the file of the 1^st respondent police.

¶17

Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this joint memo filed by both parties and quash the FIR in Crime No.60 of 2017 on the file of the 1^st respondent police and thus render justice."

¶18

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.60 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police in respect of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby quashed. The joint compromise memo shall form part of this order. Consequently, Crl.MP(MD)No.2160 of 2018 is closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶20

/True Copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

Enclosure: Xerox Copy of Joint Compromise Memo

¶23

¶24

1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam Madurai District.

¶25

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

¶26

+1cc to M/S.V.Manikandan, Advocate SR.No. 60174

¶27

CRL.O.P.(MD) No.4393 of 2018

¶28

¶29

JM/KKR/SAR 3/17.04.2018/2P/4C

¶30

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

Ramachandran v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandran 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.Syedsamsugani Vs the Superintendent of Police

Malaisamy @ Alagan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Venkatesapandiyan Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Venkatesan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Kandasamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

M. Ashok Kumar Vs the District Collector