Allowed

A.Marimuthu v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Feb 2021CRL OP(MD)/1332/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench quashed criminal proceedings in Crime Nos. 1510 and 1511 of 2020 under Section 482 CrPC, relying on a recorded joint compromise memo signed by the petitioners and the second respondent, holding that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings in Crime Nos. 1510 and 1511 of 2020; terms of joint compromise memo formed part of the order.

A.Marimuthu Vs The Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1332 and 1366 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.02.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1332 and 1366 of 2021

¶7

1.A.Marimuthu 2.A.Rameshkumar 3.A.Thiruvarasan ...Petitioners (in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1332 of 2021) 1.S.Nagaraj 2.S.Prabhu 3.S.Muthupandi ...Petitioners (in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1366 of 2021)

¶8

/Vs./

¶9

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, C-2 Subramaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai. (Crime No.1511 of 2020) 2.S.Nagaraj ...Respondents (in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1332 of 2021) 1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, C-2 Subramaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai. (Crime No.1510 of 2020) 2.A.Marimuthu ...Respondents (in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1366 of 2021)

¶10

Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime Nos.1510 and 1511 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Balamurugan (in both cases) For Respondent No.1 : Mr.R.Erottuchamy (in both cases) Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶12

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

¶13

1/3

¶14

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1332 and 1366 of 2021

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

The petitions have been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime Nos.1510 and 1511 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent, on the basis of a joint compromise memo filed by the petitioners and the second respondent.

¶17

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.1510 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 324 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1366 of 2021 and in Crime No.1511 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1332 of 2021.

¶18

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.

¶19

4.The petitioners and the second respondent appeared in person before this Court along with their counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards. They were also identified by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Ms.N.Ponnatchi (HS 1277), Special SubInspector of Police, C-2 Subramaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai. Both the parties to compromise were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence, the Compromise Memo is recorded.

¶20

5.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 22.02.2021, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending.

¶21

6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime Nos.1510 and 1511 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent are hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order.

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

2/3

¶25

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1332 and 1366 of 2021

¶26

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.

¶27

Xerox of Compromise Memo enclosed.

¶28

¶29

1.The Inspector of Police, C-2 Subramaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai.

¶30

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

¶31

Common Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1332 and 1366 of 2021 22.02.2021

¶32

KUN(CO)

¶33

SRS (12/03/2021) 3P : 3C

¶34

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

¶35

3/3

A.Marimuthu v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Marimuthu 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

Nehru Vs The Superintendent of Police

Esakkimuthu Vs The Deputy Superintendent of POlice

Pandeeswari. v Vs The Commissioner of Police

Kulanthaisamy Vs The Superintendent of Police

Sarathkumar.S Vs the Superintendent of Police

Karuppasamy Vs The Superintendent of Police