Allowed

Karuppasamy v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Feb 2021CRL OP(MD)/1255/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in P.R.C.No.14 of 2018. The court quashed the proceedings based on a recorded joint compromise memo signed by the petitioners and the complainant, finding no useful purpose in continuing the case.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was allowed and proceedings in P.R.C.No.14 of 2018 were quashed regarding the petitioners. The joint compromise memo terms are made part of the order.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1255 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.02.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1255 of 2021

¶7

1.Karuppasamy

¶8

2.Komu

¶9

3.Krishnan @ Balakrishnan ... Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Pappakudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District. Crime No.10 of 2017.

¶12

2.Chellappa ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records Charge Sheet in P.R.C.No.14 of 2018 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District, and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathya Chidambaram

¶15

For 1st Respondent : Mr.Erottuchamy Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶16

For 2nd Respondent : Mr.P.Vijayabharathi

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.14 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District, on the basis of a joint compromise memo filed by the petitioners and the second respondent.

¶19

2.The contention of the petitioners is that based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered First Information Report in Crime No.10 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 447, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992.

¶20

1/3

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1255 of 2021

¶22

3.The further contention of the petitioners is that they want to compromise the issue between them and the second respondent amicably. A joint memo of compromise is filed, which has been duly signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsels.

¶23

4.The petitioners and the second respondent appeared in person along with their respective counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards before this Court. They were also identified by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and Mr.M.Mariappan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Pappakudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District. Both the parties to compromise were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence, the Compromise Memo is recorded.

¶24

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners and also in view of the joint compromise memo, dated 06.12.2020, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending.

¶25

6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the entire proceedings in P.R.C.No.14 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners/accused 1 to 3 and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order.

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶27

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

¶29

ENCL.: XEROX COPY OF JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

2/3

¶33

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1255 of 2021

¶34

¶35

The Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District.

¶36

2.The Inspector of Police, Pappakudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶37

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶38

Copy to The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶39

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1255 of 2021

¶40

23.02.2021

¶41

nsm(CO) TR(09.03.2021) 3P 5C

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

Karuppasamy v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuppasamy 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

Prabhakar Vs The Inspector of Police

A.Marimuthu Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Sarath Kumar Vs The Inspector of Police

N.Lakshmanan Vs The Superintendent of Police

Vellammal Gurusamy.G Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ramalakshmi Vs the Addl.Director General of Police(Prisons)