Dismissed

Dr.J.Prabhakaran v. State by

Madras HC27 Feb 2019CRL OP/16958/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Upon the submission that the matter was settled, the Court directed the petitioner and the defacto complainant to appear and report. Acknowledging the settlement, the Court directed the police to complete the enquiry and close the case in crime no. 835 of 2015, cancelling the quashing petition.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the police to complete the enquiry and close the case in Crime No. 835 of 2015 on receipt of the settlement report; the petition is disposed of.

Dr.J.Prabhakaran Vs State by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.02.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.16958 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

Dr.J.Prabhakaran ...Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

State by Inspector of Police,
S 5, Pallavaram Police Station,
Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 043
2. S.Chinnaponnu ...Respondents/Complainant/
Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to the First
Information Report registered in Crime No.835 of 2015 on the
file of the Inspector of Police, S 5, Pallavaram Police Station,
Chennai / first respondent herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Arundattan
for Mr.C.Munusamy
For RR1 : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
For RR2 : No Appearance

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The writ petition has been filed to to call for the records relating to the First Information Report registered in Crime No.835 of 2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, S 5, Pallavaram Police Station, Chennai / first respondent herein and quash the same.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been settled between the parties.

¶12

Though notice was served, none appeared on behalf of the second respondent.

¶13

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

¶14

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner and the defacto complainant are directed to appear before the first respondent and report the same and on receipt of the settlement between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, the first respondent is directed to complete the enquiry and close the case in Crime No.835 of 2015.

¶15

With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pds/lok
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
S 5, Pallavaram Police Station,
Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 043
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.R.Arundattan, Advocate, S.R.No.18820
Crl.O.P.No.16958 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
GJ(CO)
SSM(22/04/2019).

¶17

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

Dr.J.Prabhakaran v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.J.Prabhakaran v. State by

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

Sundaram Vs the Inspector of Police

Quentin Dawson Vs the Inspector of Police

Ravi @ Ravi Chandiran, M/46 Vs the Inspector of Police

Mrs. J. Chitra, Age 57 Yeas, Vs Mrs. S. Swathy

R.Sasina Vs the State, Represented by

M.Badrinarayanan Vs Anandan