Allowed

Menaka v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Dec 2021CRL OP(MD)/1636/2021

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 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The court noted the presence of the de facto complainant and a filed joint compromise memo, holding that no purpose is served in keeping the prosecution alive upon the complainant's desire to withdraw the matter.

What did the court decide?

The impugned criminal proceedings in C.C.No.71 of 2017 were quashed.

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

¶1

1 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.1636 OF 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.12.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1636 of 2021

¶7

Menaka

¶8

Thangadurai ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Thirukkattupalli police station,

¶11

Thanjavur District.

¶12

(Crime No.320 of 2016) ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant

¶13

Saravanakumar ... 2^nd Respondent /

¶14

Defacto Complainant

¶15

Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the impugned final report in C.C.No.71 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvaiyaru and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate. For R-2 : Mr.Mohan

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶19

This criminal original petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.71 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru.

¶20

The defacto complainant Saravanakumar is present in person before me. He has been duly identified by Thiru.S.Balan, SSI-1038, attached to the first respondent police station. The parties have filed a joint compromise memo. The defacto complainant states that he does not want to pursue the matter. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

1/2

¶22

2 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.1636 OF 2021

¶23

Since the defacto complainant himself does not want to pursue the matter, no purpose will be served in keeping the impugned prosecution alive. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are quashed. This criminal original petition is allowed.

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

PMU

¶27

Encl:-Photocopy of Joint Compromise Memo attached.

¶28

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.

¶29

To:

¶30

The Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvaiyaru,Thanjavur District.

¶31

The Inspector of Police, Thirukkattupalli police station, Thanjavur District.

¶32

Copy to:

¶33

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

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.C.K.M.APPAJI, Advocate ( SR-38010[F] dated 09/12/2021 ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1636 of 2021 09.12.2021

¶35

MGJ(21.12.2021) 2P 5C

¶36

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

¶37

2/2

Menaka v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Menaka 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

K.Viji Vs The Superintendent of Police

Imrankhan Vs The Inspector of Police

Veerasamy Vs The Inspector of Police

Arunkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Parameshwari Vs The Director General of Police

Thanji Suresh @ Sureshkumar Vs The Inspector of Police