Allowed

Velusamy v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Dec 2021CRL OP(MD)/1213/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court quashed an FIR registered under Cr.P.C. emphasizing that since the defacto complainant and his daughter desired to resolve the matter peacefully and the petitioner provided a no-interference undertaking, keeping the prosecution alive served no purpose.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No. 102 of 2016 is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

Velusamy Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1213 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.12.2021

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1213 of 2021

Velusamy

... Petitioner /

Sole Accused

vs.

1.The State through The Inspector of Police, Thirupullani Police Station, Thirupullani, Ramanathapuram District. ... 1^st Respondent/ Complainant 2. xxxx ... 2^nd Respondent/ defacto Complainant

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to FIR in Crime No.102 of 2016 of Thirupullani Police Station pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Kannan For R1 : Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.102 of 2016 registered on the file of the first respondent.

¶14

The defacto complainant is present in person before this Court. He has been duly identified by Thiru.M.Ramesh, Spl.SI of Police, attached to Thiruppullani Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. The defacto complainant's daughter got married and she is leading a peaceful life. The petitioner gives an undertaking before this Court that he will not interfere in the life of the defacto complainant's daughter. I make it clear that if this undertaking is breached, this order will be recalled and consequence will follow.

¶15

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

¶16

1/2

¶17

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1213 of 2021

¶18

Since the defacto complainant as well as his daughter want to give a quietus to the issue, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in keeping the impugned prosecution alive. The impugned FIR is quashed. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

rmi

¶24

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶25

¶26

1.The Inspector of Police, Thirupullani Police Station, Thirupullani, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶27

Copy to

¶28

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram.

¶29

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1213 of 2021 03.12.2021 DKS(CO) TR(17.12.2021) 2P 4C

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

Velusamy v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velusamy v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar Singh Vs M.Sargunam

K.Naganatha Sethupathy Vs The Inspector of Police

Korsaon Jaisan Vs The Inspector of Police

Devarajan Vs The Inspector of Police

Rengam Vs The Inspector of Police

Poongulathal Vs The Superintendent of Police