Allowed

Kavi @ Kaviyarasan v. State Rep by

Madras HC26 Apr 2021CRL OP/7145/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing an FIR due to a post-facto compromise between the petitioners and the de facto complainant, relying on Supreme Court guidelines regarding non-compoundable offences.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the First Information Report in Crime No.1269 of 2017 and the subsequent investigation.

Kavi @ Kaviyarasan Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.04.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.7145 of 2021

¶6

1.Kavi @ Kaviyarasan 2.Sathish @ Sathish Kumar 3.Kalai @ Kalaiyarasan 4.S.Deepak @ Deepak Kumar ... Petitioners .Vs. State rep.by 1.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai District. ..1st Respondent/ Complainant (Crime No.1269 of 2017) 2.D.Romiyo ..2nd Respondent/ De facto Complainant

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.1269 of 2017 on the file of the 1st respondent/Complainant to quash the same in view of the compromise entered into both parties.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar For Respondents: Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor for R 1

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.1269 of 2017, pending on the file of the 1^st respondent Police.

¶11

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

¶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

3.Memo of Compromise dated 24.03.2021, has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant were also present at the time of hearing through Video Conferencing. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶14

Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 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.1269 of 2017, on the file of the 1^st respondent Police.

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, investigation in Crime No.1269 of 2017, on the file of the 1^st respondent police, is hereby quashed and the terms of Joint Compromise Memo shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶16

*Xerox copy of the Joint Memo compromise enclosed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

¶23

1.The Inspector of Police,

¶24

Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai District.

¶25

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶26

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

¶27

CRL.O.P.No.7145 of 2021

¶28

+1cc to Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.25470

¶29

UM(CO) CB(12/07/2021)

¶30

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

Kavi @ Kaviyarasan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavi @ Kaviyarasan 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

K.N.Nehru Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Venkatasubramanian Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

R.Venkatasubramanian Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Ramachandriran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

R.Kamatchi Vs M.Ramasamy

Radha Krishnan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police