Allowed

Raju v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Jun 2019CRL OP/11916/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., allowed a criminal original petition and quashed the FIR in Cr.No.8 of 2018. The quashing was based on a joint affidavit of compromise and the court's satisfaction that the parties had arrived at an amicable settlement, relying on Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Cr.No.8 of 2018 pending with the first respondent police are quashed and the terms of the joint affidavit of compromise form part of this order.

Raju Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.06.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

CRL.OP.No.11916 of 2019

¶6

Raju

¶7

Kousalya ...Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State represented by Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Ayanavaram, Chennai

¶10

Devi Priya ...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records and to quash the FIR registered in Cr.No.8 of 2018 by the first respondent as against the Petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor (for R1)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to accept this affidavit and to quash the FIR registered in Cr.No.8 of 2018 by the first respondent on the ground of compromise.

¶16

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

¶17

A joint affidavit of Compromise, dated 26.03.2019, has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent and also by their respective counsel. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶18

Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017

¶19

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 Case in Cr.No.8 of 2018, pending on the file of the first respondent police.

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Cr.No.8 of 2018, pending on the file of the first respondent police, is hereby quashed and the terms of joint affidavit of Compromise shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station,
Ayanavaram, Chennai
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj , Advocate SR.No. 52605
CRL.OP.No.11916 of 2019
A.SK(10/07/2019)

¶22

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

Raju v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju v. State Rep. by 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

K.Palani Vs Govindan

R.Sivasubramaniyan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Manjula, Vs Muralidharan

Subramanian, Vs Selvi

Jeyachandran Vs the Inspector of Police

Maatharasi Vs The Secretary to Government