Allowed

Sarammal v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Jun 2021CRL OP/1689/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order quashing proceedings against the petitioner in a criminal case involving allegations under IPC sections and the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, relying on a compromise and prior quashing of related proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of the charge sheet filed against the petitioner in CC.No.5894 of 2008 and closure of the connected miscellaneous petition.

Sarammal Vs the Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

1 Crl O.P. No.1689 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.06.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.1689 of 2015
and MP No.1 of 2015
Sarammal ...Petitioner/2 nd Accused
Vs.
1. State Rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
W-12, All Women Police Station (Harbour Range),
Chennai
..1 st Respondent /Complainant
2. Jasmine ... 2 nd Respondent/Defacto complainant

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioner /2^nd accused in C.C.No.5894 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

¶8

For Petitioner : N.Baskaran For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj thilak Counsel for Government (Crl. Side) for R1

¶9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶10

2 Crl O.P. No.1689 of 2015

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Criminal Original petition has been filed

¶13

seeking to quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioner /2^nd accused in C.C.No.5894 of 2008 pending on the file of the

¶14

learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that there were three accused persons in this case. The first accused is no more. The second accused is the petitioner herein. The Third accused/daughter of the 1^st accused. The accusation is for alleged offence under Sections 292, 354, 342 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women

¶16

Act. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the defacto complaint and the petitioner herein.

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶18

3 Crl O.P. No.1689 of 2015

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶20

submitted that A-1 is the main accused in this case and he is no more. The learned counsel submitted that this Court has already quashed the proceedings pending against the 3^rd accused/daughter of the 1^st accused vide order dated 03.11.2014

¶21

on the ground of compromise entered into between parties.

¶22

The relevant portions in the Affidavit of Defacto Complainant are extracted hereunder :-

¶23

above A-1 is already dead and my major grievance is

¶24

with him and because of his untimely death, I have

¶25

been advised that the case against A-1 will go. As far as A-2 & & A-3 are concerned, my grievances are only

¶26

minimal and I have compromised with them. In such

¶27

circumstances, the need for continuation of

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶29

4 Crl O.P. No.1689 of 2015

¶30

prosecution in C.C.No.5894/2008 would be not

¶31

necessary.

¶32

8. I am filing the present affidavit to bring

¶33

to the notice of this Hon'ble Court regarding the

¶34

compromise I had reached with A-2 and A-3 in this

¶35

regard.

¶36

Taking into account the compromise entered

¶37

into between parties and also of the fact that this Court has

¶38

already quashed the proceedings insofar as the 3^rd accused is concerned, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings as against this petitioner is concerned and accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

24.06.2021

¶40

Index: Yes / No

¶41

Speaking order/Non-speaking order

¶42

rka

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶44

5 Crl O.P. No.1689 of 2015

¶45

¶46

1. The learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

¶47

The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶49

6 Crl O.P. No.1689 of 2015

¶50

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.,J

¶51

rka

¶52

Crl.O.P.No.1689 of 2015
and MP No.1 of 2015
24.06.2021

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Sarammal v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarammal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akbar, Aged 35 Years Vs State Rep. by

Senthilkumar, Aged 38 Years Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

S.Mahadevan Vs K.Shanmugam

P.Rukkumani Vs M.Nithya

The Assistant Commissioner of Vs M/S.Metal Weld Electrodes

C. Venkatesh,Age 46 Years, Vs v. Suseela