Allowed

Sudhir Jhunjhunwala v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC21 Mar 2019CRL OP/7120/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Humble petition for quashing an FIR under his jurisdiction. The court acknowledged the parties had amicably settled the dispute and satisfied parties were present. No useful purpose served in keeping FIR pending. Under his guidelines, the court exercised the constitutional jurisdiction to quash the FIR.

What did the court decide?

First Information Report in Crime No.124 of 2008 on the file of the Central Crime Branch, (II Team), Egmore, Chennai is quashed.

Sudhir Jhunjhunwala Vs the State Rep by Its — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.03.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7120 of 2019 1.Sudhir Jhunjhunwala 2.Madhu Jhunjhunwala ...Petitioners/Accused 2 Vs. 1.State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch (II Team), Egmore, Chennai. 2.G.Moorthy ..Respondents/Petitioner /Defacto Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the F.I.R registered against the petitioners in Crime No.124 of 2008 on the file of the Central Crime Branch, (II Team) Egmore, Chennai. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Thiruvengadam For R1 : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.P.Dilli Babu ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R registered against the petitioners in Crime No.124 of 2008 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶6

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.

¶7

3.A Memorandum 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. 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

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

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.124 of 2008.

¶11

5.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.124 of 2008, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch (II Team), Egmore, Chennai is quashed and the terms of Memorandum of Compromise shall form part and parcel of this Order.

¶12

Sd/--
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vv2
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch (II Team),
Egmore, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+2ccs to Mr.S.Thiruvengadam , Advocate SR.No. 27126
Crl.O.P.No.7120 of 2019
A.SK(29/04/2019)

¶13

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

Sudhir Jhunjhunwala v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Jhunjhunwala v. the State Rep by Its

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

M.Bhuvaneswari Vs the Inspector of Police

H.Ramathilagam, Vs the Inspector General of

D.Kannappan, S/O.T.Duraisamy Vs the State Rep.by Inspector of

S.Nagarajan Vs the State Rep by Its

Cholarajan Vs the Superintendent of Police

D.M.Manogaran Vs S.Bhuvaneswari