Allowed

Panchavarnam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC14 Aug 2018CRL OP(MD)/9898/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petition to quash the FIR in Crime No.148 of 2011. Relying on Supreme Court guidelines, the Court held that with an amicable compromise signed by parties, no useful purpose is served in keeping pending proceedings arising from non-compoundable offences. Costs were directed to the Environment Fund.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of First Information Report in Crime No.148 of 2011; compliance with Joint Compromise Memo; payment of Rs.750 costs to Environment Fund.

Panchavarnam Vs the Inspector of Police — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.08.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P.[MD].No.9898 of 2018

¶5

1.Panchavarnam 2.Ramar 3.Lakshmanan

¶6

4.Kanakar Pandi : Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 Vs.

¶7

The Inspector of Police, Kallikudi Police Station, Madurai District. [Crime No.148 of 2011] : 1^st Respondent/Complainant 2. Panchavarnam : 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.148 of 2011 dated 22.08.2011, on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.A.P.N.Law Associates For R-1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate [Criminal Side] For R-2 : Mr.S.Gobi

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.148 of 2011 dated 22.08.2011, on the file of the first respondent police for an alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 452, 323, 427, 435 506(ii) and 380(NP) of IPC.

¶12

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

¶13

3 . A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. In order to identify the respective parties they have also produced the copies of the Aadhaar Card which are made part of the record . This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶14

¶15

4 . Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served

¶16

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 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.148 of 2011.

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a

¶18

sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.148 of 2011, dated 22.08.2011, on the file of the first respondent police is quashed and the terms of Joint Compromise Memo shall form part and parcel of this order. Each of the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.750/- as costs, to the credit of the “Environment Fund” (payable in Account No.6656485009, Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai), within a period of one week 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. Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶19

/True Copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I) Encl: Xerox copy of Joint Compromise Memo To

¶21

The Inspector of Police, Kallikudi Police Station, Madurai District.

¶22

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

¶23

The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Madras High Court Campus, Madras.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.N.Ananthapadmanaban, Advocate Sr.No.78782

¶25

SJI

¶26

VB/SKN/SAR1/14.09.2018/2P/5C

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.[MD].No.9898 of 2018 14.08.2018

Panchavarnam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchavarnam 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

Alagarsamy Vs the District Collector

M.Thangaraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

(*) G. Raghunaat Vs the Inspector of Police

A. Krishnaveni Vs the District Superintendent of

S. Ravi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Fareen Vs the Inspector of Police