Allowed

Munusamy v. State Rep by

Madras HC25 Oct 2021CRL OP/17511/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed the FIR in Crime No. 60 of 2016 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the parties to the dispute, including the petitioner and the de facto complainant, had reached an amicable settlement through a joint compromise memo, rendering continuing investigation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime No. 60 of 2016 was quashed against the petitioner, and the ongoing investigation was also quashed.

Munusamy Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.17511 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.9605 of 2021

¶6

Munusamy

¶7

...Petitioner/Accused

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The state rep by, The Inspector of Police, Avalur Police Station, Ranipet, (Crime No.60/2016) ..1^st Respondent/Prosecuting Complainant

¶10

2.Vijayalakshmi @ Vijaya

¶11

...2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records in Crime No.60 of 2016 pending investigation on the file of the 1^st respondent Police and to quash as against the petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Thirumoorthy

¶14

For R1 :Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

For R2 :Mr.T.Aurl

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.60 of 2016, dated 01.03.2016 on the file of the 1^st respondent Police.

¶18

2.The case of the prosecution is that the 2^nd respondent and her relatives Ramachandran, Balamurugan, Dhayalan were living as joint family in thatched house. On 01.03.2016, at about 12.15 a.m., when the 2^nd respondent came out, the roof of the house was burning. When the 2^nd respondent searched around the house, the petitioner attempted to escape from there. The

¶19

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

¶20

2^nd respondent was screaming and attempting to catch the petitioner along with Janaki, Gokulakrishnan, Gopi and Rasukutti. Despite the same, the petitioner and some others escaped from the scene and the petitioner also set fire to the house of one Gopal, who is the relative of the 2^nd respondent. Hence, the 2^nd respondent lodged a complaint to the 1^st respondent that due to previous enmity, the petitioner and some others set fire to the house of the 2^nd respondent and Gopal. The 1^st respondent Police has registered an FIR in Crime No.60 of 2016, for offence under Sections 436 of IPC.

¶21

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.

¶22

4.The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent have filed the Joint Compromise Memo. The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent are present through Video conferencing. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶23

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.60 of 2016, on the file of the 1^st respondent Police.

¶24

6.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the investigation in Crime No.60 of 2016, on the file of the 1 st respondent police, is quashed against the petitioner. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

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

¶29

vv2

¶30

¶31

1.The Inspector of Police, Avalur Police Station, Ranipet District.

¶32

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶33

CRL.O.P.No.17511 of 2021

¶34

MG(CO) SP(29/11/2021)

¶35

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

Munusamy v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munusamy v. State Rep 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

Thilaka Mani Vs State by The commissioner of Police

O.S.Josephine Vs State Rep.by

Arr.Seenivasan Vs The Inspector of Police

V. Raj Natrajan Vs S. Ramamoorthy

Vairavan Vs the Commissioner of Police

R.Krishnamoorthy Vs the Commissioner of Police