Allowed

C.Tamilarasu v. State Rep.by

Madras HC30 Mar 2021CRL OP/4179/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras quashed the First Information Report in Crime No.1161 of 2014 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the parties had amicably compromised the dispute after the investigation stage commenced, rendering continued proceedings unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

First Information Report in Crime No.1161 of 2014 quashed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; petitioners ordered to pay costs.

C.Tamilarasu Vs State Rep.by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 30.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P No.4179 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.2629 of 2021

¶6

1.C.Tamilarasu

¶7

2.S.Alex @ Stephen Alex @ Pradeep Petitioners

¶8

vs.

¶9

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai District. (Crime No.1161 of 2014)

¶10

S.Vijayakumar Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records connected with the FIR in Crime No.1161 of 2014 pending investigation on the file of the 1^st respondent police, quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Balamanikandan

¶13

For Respondents: Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate for R1

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records made in Crime No.1161 of 2014 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶16

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.

¶17

The affidavit dated 18.03.2021 has been filed by the 2^nd

¶18

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

¶19

respondent/de-facto complainant before this Court. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present and they were identified by Ms.Meena, Head Constable, M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai District, who was also present at the time of hearing. 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.1161 of 2014. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶20

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.1161 of 2014 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai District.

¶21

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the FIR in Crime No.1161 of 2014, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai District, is quashed and the terms of affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order. Each of the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.750/- (Rupees Seven Hundred and Fifty 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.

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

ssr

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

The Inspector of Police, M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai District. 2. The President, Tamilnadu Advocate Clerks Association, Madras High Court, Chennai. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Copy To The Section Officer, ER Section High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.G.Balamanikandan, Advocate, S.R.No.20877 Crl.O.P No.4179 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.2629 of 2021 GMI(CO) RGA(27/09/2021)

¶28

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

C.Tamilarasu v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Tamilarasu 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

Madhu Vasudevan Vs State Rep by

S.Irfan Vs Barkath

Subburaj Vs the State Represented by

Nakkheeran Gopal Vs C.Ve.Shanmugam

T.Karthik Vs State by

K.Palani Velu Vs The Commissioner of Police