This Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash an FIR where parties had amicably compromised. The High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, noting the settlement and lack of utility in keeping the FIR pending despite non-compoundable offences.
The First Information Report in Crime No.810 of 2012 is quashed.
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.
1 CRL OP.No. 6447 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
CRL.O.P.No.6447 of 2021
Kanniyappan .. Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1. State Rep. By the
Inspector of police,
T-3, korattur Police Station,
Chennai District. ..1 st respondent/Complainant
2.Ramalingam .. 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.810
of 2012 on the file of the 1st respondent /complainant to quash the same in view of the compromise entered into both parties.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor
2 CRL OP.No. 6447 of 2021
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed
to quash the FIR in Crime No.810 of 2012, pending on the file of the
1st respondent.
Court. The petitioner and the second respondent were also
present through Video conferencing and they were identified by Mr.Shivakumar, Head constable,T-3, korattur Police Station, Chennai District. In order to identify the respective parties they
have also produced the copies of the Aadhaar Card and it is made
part of the record . In the affidavit it has been stated that the
petitioner and the second respondent have entered into a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ compromise and amicably settled their issues in Crime No.810 of
3 CRL OP.No. 6447 of 2021
that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
the file of the 1st respondent Police.
a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.810 of 2012, on the file of
the 1st respondent police, is quashed and the terms of affidavit shall https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
form part and parcel of this order. The petitioner shall pay a sum
4 CRL OP.No. 6447 of 2021
of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as costs, to the credit of
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.
01.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
rka
To
5 CRL OP.No. 6447 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
rka
Crl.O.P.No.6447 of 2021
6 CRL OP.No. 6447 of 2021
01.04.2021
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash the FIR in Crime No.810 of 2012 in view of the compromise entered into by both parties.
Whether section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash a non-compoundable offence based on a settlement.
Whether the terms of the compromise affidavit form part of the order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of GujaratReferred¶26
2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv GurjarReferred¶26
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kanniyappan
State Rep. By the Inspector of police, T-3, korattur Police Station, Chennai District
Ramalingam
N. ANAND VENKATESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
