The Madras High Court, relying on Supreme Court guidelines for post-settlement quashing proceedings, allowed a Criminal Original Petition to quash the FIR in Crime No.409 of 2016. Petitioners were ordered to deposit costs as per the compromise terms.
FIR in Crime No.409 of 2016 quashed; petitioners directed to pay Rs.2,500/- costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P No.20333 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.No.8501 of 2020
1.Ravichandran @ Ari
2.Varatharaj
3.Periyasami
4.Azhakarsami .. Petitioner/Accused 1 to 4
Vs.
1.State rep.by
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Ulundurpet Police Station,
Villupuram District,
Crime No. 409/2016 ..1 st Respondent/Complainant
2.Prabu ..2 nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.409 of 2016 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ulundurpet Police Station, Villupuram District and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Saravana Kumar
For Respondents: Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, for R1 Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the Crime No.409 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
AT
To
3.The President,
Advocate Clerk Association,
Highcourt,
Madras.
+1cc to Mr.S. SARAVANAKUMAR, Advocate, S.R.No.4947
GSM(CO)
SM/24/02/2021
Crl.O.P No.20333 of 2020 and
Crl.M.P.No.8501 of 2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report in Crime No.409 of 2016 should be quashed given the parties have compromised the dispute.
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash a non-compoundable offence after an amicable settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of GujrathRelied on¶16
2017 9 SCC 641 (Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) · Who else cites this
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and AnotherRelied on¶16
(2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10 (The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravichandran @ Ari, Varatharaj, Periyasami, Azhakarsami
State rep.by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ulundurpet Police Station, Villupuram District
Prabu
N. ANAND VENKATESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
