Allowed

Anandakumar v. State Rep.by

Madras HC17 Jun 2021CRL OP/7095/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. following a joint compromise affidavit filed by the petitioner and the private complainant, holding that no useful purpose would be served by maintaining prosecution despite non-compoundable nature.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime No.48 of 2020 pending before the 1st respondent police was quashed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7095 of 2021

¶6

Anandakumar ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCB-I, Chennai. (Cr.No.48/2020). 2.R.Ivarathi ...Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to issue direction to call for records in Crime No.48 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.T.V.C.Kartheeban

¶11

For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.C.Mohan Raj

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.48 of 2020, pending on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶14

2.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.

¶15

3.The Joint Compromise Affidavit dated 23.03.2021 has been filed by the the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent/de-facto complainant before this Court. The petitioner and the second respondent were also present through Video conferencing. In the said affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner and the second respondent have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in Crime No.48 of 2020. This Court also

¶16

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

¶17

enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶18

4.In pursuant to the order of this Court dated 15.04.2021,

¶19

the second respondent/defacto-complainant appeared before the respondent police and informed about the compromise entered between her and the petitioner.

¶20

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent also confirms the same.

¶21

6.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be

¶22

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.48 of 2020, on the file of the 1^st respondent Police.

¶23

7.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.48 of 2020, on the file of the 1 st respondent police, is quashed and the terms of affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order. [ The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) as costs, to the credit of the Chief Justice Relief Fund (payable in Accounts Section of the High Court Registry)],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].

¶24

Xerox copy of Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 23.03.2021 enclosed

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

1. The Inspector of Police, CCB-I, Chennai.

¶32

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶33

Copy To

¶34

The Section Officer, Accounts Section, High Court, Madras.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.T.V.G.Kartheeban, Advocate, S.R.No.28317

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.7095 of 2021

¶37

PMK(CO)

¶38

RGA(22/07/2021)

¶39

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

Anandakumar v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandakumar 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

Sri Sabari Builders and Real Estate Vs State Rep by

A.Muni Babu Vs State Rep by

C.Selvam Vs The District Collector

V.N.Raj Kiran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Vishal Vs the State Rep.by

E.Permual Vs the Inspector of Police