Allowed

Vinoth Kumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Nov 2021CRL OP/13526/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR regarding a domestic dispute involving assault. Finding that the parties had amicably settled their differences, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the investigation despite the offence being non-compoundable, citing Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime No.1230 of 2020 and the subsequent investigation against the petitioner were quashed.

Vinoth Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.11.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.13526 OF 2021 AND CRL.M.P.NO.7423 OF 2021

¶6

Vinoth Kumar

¶7

...Petitioner / Sole Accused

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The Inspector of Police, Kedar Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶10

2.V.Dharchanamoorthi ...Respondents / Defacto Complainant

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No.1230 of 2020 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Surendran

¶13

For Respondents : R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (crl.side)

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No.1230 of 2020 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the second respondent/de-facto complainant are son and father and both of them are living in the same house along with defacto complainant's sister, who is a widow. Since the defactocomplainant's sister demised 20 years back, she stayed with the de-facto complainant. Whileso, on 22.07.2020 at about 7.00 A.M, the petitioner had quarreled with the defacto complainant to vacate his sister from home. When the same was refused by the de-facto complainant, the petitioner assaulted the de-facto complainant with a wooden log. Therefore, a complaint has been lodged by the de-facto complainant, based on which a case was registered in Crime No.1230 of 2020.

¶17

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

¶18

3.The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶19

4.The petitioner and the second respondent are present before this Court, confirmed that they have settled all the disputes between them. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶20

5.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), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.1230 of 2020, on the file of the 1^st respondent Police.

¶21

6.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the investigation in Crime No 1230 of 2020, on the file of the 1 st respondent police, is quashed against the petitioner. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar arr

¶23

¶24

1.The Sub Inspector of Police Kedar Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶25