Allowed

A.Senthil Kumar v. the State

Madras HC8 Feb 2021CRL OP/587/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, in a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of an FIR, quashed the First Information Report. The court was satisfied that the petitioner and the de facto complainant had amicably settled their dispute. Relying on Supreme Court guidelines regarding settlement in non-compoundable offences, the court held no useful purpose would be served by continuing the investigation an

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime No.523 of 2014 is quashed. The petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs. 1000/-

A.Senthil Kumar Vs the State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.587 of 2021

¶6

A.Senthil Kumar

¶7

...Petitioner/ Sole Accused .Vs. 1.The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, B.8, Crime Branch Police Station, Coimbatore. ..1st Respondent/ Complainant 2.M.Bagavathy ..2nd Respondent/ De facto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.523 of 2014 dated 07.09.2014, pending investigation, on the file of the Inspector of Police, B-8, Crime Branch Police Station, Coimbatore and quash the same as illegal.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.B.Viswanathan For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor for R 1

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.523 of 2014 dated 07.09.2014, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

¶11

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.

¶12

The petitioner and 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant have filed the Deed of Compromise and consent affidavit dt. 08.02.2021, before this Court. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, who is the sister of the petitioner were present before this Court. They were

¶13

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

¶14

identified by Mr.Dharmaraj, Sub Inspector, Coimbatore, who was also present. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the de facto complainant and the victim who is the brother of the de fact complainant, have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in Crime No.523 of 2014. 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.523 of 2014, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, B-8, Crime Branch Police Station, Coimbatore.

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the Crime No.523 of 2014, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, B-8, Crime Branch Police Station, Coimbatore. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand 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.

¶17

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar KP

¶18

¶19

The Inspector of Police, B.8, Crime Branch Police Station, Coimbatore.

¶20

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

¶21

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶22

3.The President

¶23

Tamil Nadu Advocates Clerk Association Madras Clerk Association Chennai

¶24

+1 CC to Mr.S.B.Viswanathan, Advocate sr 6856.

¶25

CRL.O.P.No.587of 2021
SMI(CO)
SP(25/03/2021)

¶26

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

A.Senthil Kumar v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Senthil Kumar v. the State

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

K.Ashokan Vs City Public Prosecutor

Elumalai Vs the State Rep.by

Venkatesan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by

R.Seshadri Vs S.Padmashree

E.Saroja Vs State

Kushdesai Vs M/S.Cholamandalam Investments