Quashed

S.v.Ingersoll v. State Represented by

Madras HC29 Jan 2019CRL OP/2203/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. citing a compromise between parties. Although offences were non-compoundable, the settlement and lack of trial utility guided the decision under Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.235 of 2017 quashed against the petitioner only; terms of compromise memo incorporated; petitioner to pay Rs.1500 cost.

S.v.Ingersoll Vs State Represented by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:29.01.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.2203 of 2019

¶6

and Cr.l.M.P.No.1426 of 2019

¶7

S.V.Ingersoll ... Petitioner/Accused 4

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State Rep. By

¶10

The Inspector of Police, District Crime Brance, Perambalur. ..Respondent/Complainant

¶11

Anandhan ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.235 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan

¶14

For R1 : Mr.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶15

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.235 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur.

¶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 Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court dated 29.01.2019 which have been signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The parties were also present before the Court and they were identified and 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 have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶18

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

¶19

Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping C.C.No.235 of 2017 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 proceedings in C.C.No.235 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent.

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.235 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur is quashed only in so far as this petitioner is concerned. It is made clear that the proceedings can continue in so far as the other accused persons are concerned and the terms of Joint Compromise Memo shall form part and parcel of this order. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as cost, to the credit of the Chief Justice Relief Fund, High Court, Madras, 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed. -s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-IV) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar dss To 1. The learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur. 2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Brance, Perambalur. 3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. 4. The Section officer Accounts Section High Court, Madras 104. +1 CC to Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, Advocate sr 7326. Crl.O.P.No.2203 of 2019 and Cr.l.M.P.No.1426 of 2019 SP(19/02/2019)

¶21

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

S.v.Ingersoll v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.v.Ingersoll v. State Represented by

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

Sadasivan Pillai Vs Sheela

Kannan C. Vs Mohan

M/s.Tamizhkulam Pathipalayam Vs The Inspector of Police (Crime)

V.Ranjitha Vs the Inspector General of Police

Mayalagan Vs State Rep. by

G.Ezhilarasu Vs the Superintendent of Police