Allowed

B.Jayaraman, M/a 56 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC5 Mar 2021CRL OP/19694/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed three Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIRs and criminal proceedings. Finding that the parties had amicably compromised the dispute and entered into a joint memo of settlement, the Court held no useful purpose would be served in keeping the FIRs pending, even though the offences are non-compoundable. The Court quashed the FIR in Crime

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.941 of 2016 and the proceedings in CC No.189 of 2021 and CC No.5810 of 2007 were quashed.

B.Jayaraman, M/a 56 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 05.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.19694 of 2017 and 4252 & 4349 of 2021 and Crl.MP.No.11878 of 2017

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.19694 of 2017:

¶7

B.Jayaraman 2. J.Amsaveni ..Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, J 12 Kanathur Police Station, East Coast Road, Kanathur, Chennai-112.

¶10

Prabhakar Naidu ..Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crime No.941 of 2016 dated 13.07.2016 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as against the petitioners.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Arokiaraj For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan, R1 Government Advocate

¶13

Crl.O.P.No.4252 of 2021:

¶14

V.Anandraj ..Petitioner Vs.

¶15

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai.

¶16

B.Jayaraman

¶17

Gurupadham 4. R.Vijayakumar ..Respondents

¶18

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

¶19

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioner in CC.No.189 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Karunakaran For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan, R1 Government Advocate

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.4349 of 2021: 1.B.Jayaraman 2.Amsaveni Petitioners Vs.

¶22

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai.

¶23

V.Anandraj 3. Gurupadham 4. Eswaran

¶24

Varadharajan ..Respondents

¶25

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the charge sheet filed against the first and second petitioner in CC.No.5810 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and to quash the same.

¶26

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Arokiaraj For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan, R1 Government Advocate

¶27

COMMON ORDER

¶28

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.941 of 2016, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, J-12, East Coast Road, Kanathur, Chennai and the proceedings in CC.No.189 of 2021, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and the proceedings in CC.No.5810 of 2007, on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, respectively.

¶29

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

¶30

The cases are 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.

¶31

The Joint memo of compromise dated 28.07.2018 filed in

¶32

the suit in OS.No.179 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur. The both the parties were also present before this Court at the time of hearing and they were identified by Mr. Ramesh, Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai. In order to identify the respective parties, they have also produced the copies of the Aadhaar Card and it is made part of the record. In the joint memo of compromise, it has been stated that the parties have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in FIR in Crime No.941 of 2016, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, J-12, East Coast Road, Kanathur, Chennai and the proceedings in CC.No.189 of 2021, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and the proceedings in CC.No.5810 of 2007, on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, respectively. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶33

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 Supreme 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.941 of 2016, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, J-12, East Coast Road, Kanathur, Chennai and the proceedings in CC.No.189 of 2021, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and the proceedings in CC.No.5810 of 2007, on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, respectively.

¶34

These Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed and as a sequel, the FIR the FIR in Crime No.941 of 2016, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, J-12, East Coast Road, Kanathur, Chennai and the proceedings in CC.No.189 of 2021, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and the proceedings in CC.No.5810 of 2007, on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, are quashed and the terms of the joint memo of compromise shall form part and parcel of this order. [ The petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.19694 of 2017 and 4252 & 4349 of 2021 shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees

¶35

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

¶36

Five thousand only) each as costs, to the credit President, Tamil Nadu Advocates Clerk Association, Madras High Court, Chennai (Indian Bank, High Court Branch, A/c No.484026006, IFSC Code:IDIB000M157), 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 petition is closed.

¶37

*Xerox copy of Joint Memo of Compromise enclosed

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶40

//True Copy//

¶41

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶42

rli

¶43

¶44

The Inspector of Police, J 12 Kanathur Police Station, East Coast Road, Kanathur, Chennai-112.

¶45

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai.

¶46

The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.

¶47

The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶48

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶49

+5cc to Mr.T.Karunakaran, Advocate, S.R.No.14910,14909,14908 +3cc to Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.14363,14362,14361

¶50

Crl.O.P.Nos.19694 of 2017 and 4252 & 4349 of 2021 and Crl.MP.No.11878 of 2017

¶51

PCH(CO) KKV/29/07/2021

¶52

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

B.Jayaraman, M/a 56 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Jayaraman, M/a 56 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

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

G.Ravichandran Vs The Commissioner

D.Ezhilarasi @ Meera Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate

Abuthaheer Vs the Inspector of Police

Askar Ali Vs State Rep.by

V.Prabhu Vs State by

R.Raghavan Vs Baskaran