Allowed

Byjesh v. State Represented by

Madras HC20 Jan 2020CRL OP/883/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet in C.C.No.7740 of 2017. The court held that since the parties had entered into an amicable settlement and filed a joint compromise memo, keeping the First Information Report pending would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.7740 of 2017 against the petitioners and enforcement of the terms of the Compromise Memo.

Byjesh Vs State Represented by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶5

CRL.OP.Nos.883 of 2020 and 33831 of 2019

¶6

Byjesh ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.883/2020
Ramakrishnan ...Petitioner in
Crl.O.P.No.33831/2019
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police
V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station-Crime,
Thirumangalam,
Chennai – 600 101.
Cr.No.176/2016
2.Jose ...Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps.
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under
Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the
records and quash the charge sheet in CC.No.7740 of 2017, on
the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶7

For Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.883 of 2020 : Mr.M.Vivekanandan

¶8

For Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.33831 of 2019 : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran

¶9

For Respondent in

¶10

both Crl.O.Ps. : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz for R1 Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

COMMON ORDER

¶12

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in CC.No.7740 of 2017, on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chennai.

¶13

The respondent has filed a charge sheet stating that the petitioners herein have committed offence punishable under Section 381 of IPC and based on the same the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, has taken the case on file as C.C.No.7740 of 2017.

¶14

These cases are 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.

¶15

A joint compromise memo dated 20.01.2020 has been filed by the 2^nd respondent/de-facto complainant before this Court. The petitioners and the second respondent also present in person before this Court and they are identified by the first respondent. In order to identify the respective parties they have also produced the copies of the Aadhaar Card and driving licence and the same are made part of the record. In the compromise memo, it has been stated that the petitioners and the second respondent had entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in C.C.No.7740 of 2017. This Court also enquired both the parties and satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶16

Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending. Even though, the offence involved is 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 Case in C.C.No.7740 of 2017 on the file of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, against the petitioners herein.

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.7740 of 2017 on the file of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is hereby quashed as against the petitioners and the terms of Compromise Memo shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

drl

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

1.The Inspector of Police V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station-Crime, Thirumangalam, Chennai – 600 101. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 3.The XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 4.Do thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Egmore, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.M.Vivekanandan , Advocate SR.No. 3428 +1cc to Mr.V.Anandahan , Advocate SR.No. 3435 CRL.OP.Nos.883 of 2020 and 33831 of 2019

¶25

A.SK(17/02/2020)

¶26

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

Byjesh v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Byjesh 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

K.Karthik Vs the Inspector of Police

Mani Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohamed Siddique Vs State Represented by

V.Rajkumar Vs State Rep. by

M.Muthu Saravana Kumar Vs the Commissioner of Police

K.Chandrasekar Vs State by