Allowed

Subramani v. the State Rep by

Madras HC28 Oct 2021CRL OP/20068/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the charge sheet in C.C.No.126 of 2015 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., recognizing an amicable settlement between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant, relying on Supreme Court guidelines regarding compromise in non-compoundable cases.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.126 of 2015 before Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram quashed; terms of compromise affidavit made part of order.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.20068 of 2021

¶6

1.Subramani

¶7

2.Mayilathal 3.Selvaprakash 4.Sapapathi ..Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State by Inspector of Police Alangiyam Police Station Tiruppur Distric. .. Respondent/Complainant

¶10

2.Sabaridevi .. Respondents/Defacto Complainant

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.126 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram.

¶12

This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.126 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram.

¶13

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the second respondent are relative. The first petitioner herein is the maternal uncle of the second respondent's husband. While so, on 02.10.2014 about 11.45 pm., when the second respondent was in Semmadakattu Thottam, it is alleged that the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant and her husband and caused injuries. Hence, on the basis of complaint given by the second respondent, an FIR was registered in Crime No.224 of 2014 dated 02.10.2014 against the petitioners.

¶14

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

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are law abiding persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged in the Charge Sheet. The petitioners and the de-facto complainant are the relatives, due to previous enmity a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioners. Now, after the intervention of respectable known persons, both of them have come to a compromise. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.126 of 2015.

¶16

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

¶17

An Affidavit dated 24.10.2021 has been filed by the 2^nd respondent/de-facto complainant before this Court. The 2^nd respondent and petitioners present through Video conferencing. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioners and the second respondent have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in C.C.No.126 of 2015. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶18

Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case 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 case in C.C.No.126 of 2015, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram.

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.126 of 2015, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, is quashed and the terms of affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶20

Enclosed the Xerox copy of Affidavit

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

dna

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram.

¶28

2.The Inspector of Police Alangiyam Police Station Tiruppur District.

¶29

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶30

CRL.O.P.No.20068 of 2021

¶31

MG(CO) B.VC(01/11/2021)

¶32

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

Subramani v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramani v. the 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

Mother of Mercy Church, Rep by Its Vs the Tashildar

M.Nagarajan Vs the State Rep.by

D.Anand Vs State Rep.by Its

Raja Vs State Rep.by Its

Ramachandran Vs State Rep by

Siva Vs State Rep by