Allowed

B.Vinoth v. State Rep by

Madras HC29 Apr 2021CRL OP/7580/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed a criminal complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon the filing of a Joint Compromise Memo between petitioners and the defacto complainant. The Court found the dispute amicably settled and exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings despite the offences being non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

夸灭了在 XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court pending的 C.C.No.8006 of 2017 号投诉书。下令各当事人在规定时间内缴付费用。

B.Vinoth Vs State Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 29.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P No.7580 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.5039 of 2021

¶6

1.B.Vinoth
2.P.Balu
3.Selvakumari
4.Vivek ... Petitioners / A1 to A4

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.The Inspector of Police, W-26 – All Women Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Chennai. ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant 2.Agathiya ... 2^nd respondent / Defacto complainant

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the complaint in C.C.No.8006 of 2017, on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Saidapet, Chennai.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.V.T.Narendiran For R1 : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.C.Thangamani

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(Through video conference)

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the complaint in C.C.No.8006 of 2017, on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Saidapet, Chennai.

¶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 Memo dated 21.04.2021 has been filed by the petitioners / A1 to A4 and the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant before this Court. The petitioners / A1 to A4 and the 2^nd respondent /defacto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complainant were also present before this Court through video

¶16

conferencing at the time of hearing. In the above said Joint Compromise Memo, it has been stated that the petitioners / A1 to A4 and the 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in C.C.No.8006 of 2017, on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Saidapet, Chennai. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶17

4.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 reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 – (Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai vs. State of Gujarath), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme 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 complaint in C.C.No.8006 of 2017, on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Saidapet, Chennai.

¶18

5.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.8006 of 2017, on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Saidapet, Chennai., is quashed and the terms of Joint Compromise Memo shall form part and parcel of this order. [The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only each) 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]. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition also stands closed.

¶19

*Xerox Copy of the Joint Memo Compromise enclosed

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶21

//True copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar ssi

¶23

¶24

The Inspector of Police, W-26 – All Women Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Chennai.

¶25

The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶26

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

¶27

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.

¶28

Copy To

¶29

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

¶30

+2cc to Mr.V.T.Narendiran, Advocate SR.No.2667

¶31

Crl.OP No.7580 of 2021
and Crl.M.P No.5039 of 2021
RSI(CO)
GMY(29/06/2021)

¶32

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

B.Vinoth v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Vinoth 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

V.G.P.Rajadas Vs The Commissioner of Police

Narayanamoorthy Vs the State Rep.by

Ramachandran Vs the Executive Magistrate Cum

Selvam Vs State Rep.by

Rajesh Lodha, Aged 50 Years Vs Mahaveer Traders

Harihar Narasimha Iyer Vs State by