Allowed

Harshitha, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Sept 2019CRL OP(MD)/1735/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The Court was satisfied that the underlying dispute was amicably settled via a signed joint compromise memo, rendering further proceedings useless.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.66 of 2018 are quashed; terms of compromise memo form part of the order. Petitioners to pay Rs.5000 to Chief Justice Relief Fund.

Harshitha, Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

CRL.O.P.(MD).No.1735 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.09.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRL.O.P.(MD).No.1735 of 2019 and CRL.M.P(MD)Nos.931 and 932 of 2019 ... Petitioners/A2 and A3 Vs.

¶7

1.Harshitha

¶8

... Petitioners/A2 and A3

¶9

2.Srikumar

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai City.

¶11

Bava B J Saroja

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.66 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and quash the same as far as these petitioners are concerned.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Muthusaravanan

¶15

For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R2 : Mr.Muthuvijayapandian

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.66 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

¶18

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

¶19

3. A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners

¶20

1/3

¶21

CRL.O.P.(MD).No.1735 of 2019

¶22

and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.Periyaadikkan, SSI of Police. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶23

4 .Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceeding pending before the trial Court. 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 proceeding in C.C.No.66 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

¶24

5.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.66 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, is quashed and the terms of compromise memo, which shall form part and parcel of this order. The each of the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/(Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs, to the credit of the Chief Justice Relief Fund (payable in Accounts Section of the High Court Registry), 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 are closed.

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶26

¶27

Encl: Xerox copy of Joint Compromise Memo

¶28

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

¶29

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai City.

¶30

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai.

¶31

2/3

¶32

CRL.O.P.(MD).No.1735 of 2019

¶33

Copy to:

¶34

The Section Officer, Accounts Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.C.MUTHUSARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-87521[F] dated 18/09/2019 )

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.P.MUTHU VIJAYA PANDIAN, Advocate ( SR-88119[F] dated 20/09/2019 )

¶36

CRL.O.P.(MD).No.1735 of 2019 and CRL.M.P(MD)Nos.931 and 932 of 2019 18.09.2019

¶37

AE/ (16.10.2019) 3P 7C

¶38

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

¶39

3/3

Harshitha, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshitha, v. the 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

Punitha Anthoniar Alayam Vs the District Collector

M/S.Elfin Ecom Pvt. Limited Vs The inspector of police

D.Soundharapandi Vs The inspector of police

Pandi Maruthayi Vs Geetharamani

Sivakumar Vs Sudhasini

Mrs.D.Derens, Vs State Rep. by Its