Allowed

Sumathi v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Feb 2019CRL OP/2939/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of an FIR in Crime No.1304 of 2018. The court held that an amicable settlement reached between the parties rendered keeping the FIR pending unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Crime No.1304 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police were quashed. Petitioners to jointly pay Rs.5,000 to Udavum Karangal.

Sumathi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.02.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.2939 of 2018

¶2

1.Sumathi 2.Srinivasalu 3.Karunakaran ...Petitioners Vs.

¶3

1.State by,

¶4

The Sub Inspector of Police, K-9, Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar Police Station Chennai. (Crime No.1304 of 2018)

¶5

2.Jeeva ...Respondents

¶6

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.1304 of 2018 pending on the file of 1^st Respondent and quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioners : Mr. G.Ashok Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor - R1

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.1304 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, K-9, Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar Police Station.

¶10

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.

¶11

Both the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant have entered into a compromise and to that effect they have also separately filed an affidavit dated 08.01.2019 before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. All the parties are present and identified by their respective counsel and the Police. In order to identify the respective parties, they have also produced the copies of the Aadhaar Card 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.

¶12

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

¶13

Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served 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.1304 of 2018.

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.1304 of 2018, on the file of The Sub Inspector of Police, K-9, Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar Police Station Chennai is quashed and the terms of affidavit filed by both the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent/de-facto shall form part and parcel of this Order. The petitioners shall jointly pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-, as costs, to the Udavum Karangal, No.460, 25th Street, N S K Nagar, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106, 9144-26216321, 26216421, 26222161, 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(Co) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar uma To 1. The Sub Inspector of Police, K-9, Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar Police Station Chennai. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.G.Ashok Kumar , Advocate SR.No. 9617 Crl.O.P.No.2939 of 2019 A.SK(06/03/2019)

¶15

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

Sumathi v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumathi v. the Sub 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

P.Shanmugam Vs State Rep. by

K.Vivekanandan Vs the State Rep by

Shanthi Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police

M.Sivasubramanian Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Tharvej Bhanu Vs the State Rep by Its

P.R.Marimuthu Vs M/S Gokulakannan Chits