Allowed

Ruban v. State Rep by

Madras HC9 Mar 2021CRL OP/3546/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court noted that while the offences are non-compoundable, the parties had lodged a joint memo of compromise amicable settlement. Relying on Supreme Court guidelines, the court held no useful purpose is served in proceeding further and quashed the FIR, directing the petitioner to p

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No. 941 of 2020 is quashed. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 1500 as costs to the Chief Presidency Magistrate/Clerk Association within one week.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.3546 OF 2021

¶6

Ruban
2. Mashok Petitioners/
A1 & A2
vs.
1. State by
The Inspector of Police,
T-12, Poonamallee Police Station,
Poonamallee,
Chennai. ... 1 st Respondent/
Complainant
2. Silambarasan ... 2 nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
PRAYER:
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash
the first information report registered in Crime No.941 of 2020
pending investigation on the file of the first respondent.

¶7

For Petitioners: Mr.V.Paarthiban

¶8

For Respondents: Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz

¶9

Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the first information report registered in Crime No.941 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present they were identified by Mr.Kumar, Inspector of Police, T-12, Poonamallee Police Station, Poonamallee, Chennai. 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 Crime No.941 of 2020. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶15

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.941 of 2020 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, T-12, Poonamallee Police Station, Poonamallee, Chennai.

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the FIR in Crime No.941 of 2020, on the file of the Inspector of Police, T-12, Poonamallee Police Station, Poonamallee, Chennai pending, is quashed and the terms of compromise shall form part and parcel of this order. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) as costs, to the credit of the 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.

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

ssr

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

The Inspector of Police,

¶22

T-12, Poonamallee Police Station,

¶23

Poonamallee, Chennai.

¶24

The Public Prosecutor,

¶25

High Court, Madras.

¶26

Copy To

¶27

The President, Tamil Nadu Advocates Clerk Association, High Court, Madras.

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.3546 of 2021
MG(CO)
CS/08/04/2021

¶29

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

Ruban v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruban 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

Elizabeth Vs State Rep.by

Kuppan Vs Station House Officer

K.S.Subramaniyan Vs State Rep.by

K.Vinaykumar Reddy Vs The State of Tamilnadu

R. RANJITH,27 Yrs, Vs Inspector of Police

M.Nehru Vs State Rep.by