Allowed

Ganesan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Dec 2021CRL OP(MD)/1764/2021

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. Quashing the criminal proceedings in a matrimonial case upon the parties' joint compromise and the defacto complainant's statement that she had no further claims.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.750 of 2017 were quashed and the criminal original petition was allowed.

Ganesan Vs The Inspector of Police — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

1 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.1764 OF 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1764 of 2021

¶5

Ganesan

¶6

Thangapandi

¶7

Pandiselvi

¶8

Sethuraja 5. Rakkammal 6.Rekha ... Petitioners / Accused 1 to 6

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State through, The Inspector of Police, All women police station, Samayanallur, Madurai District. (Crime No.65 of 2014) ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant

¶11

Mahalakshmi ... 2^nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.750 of 2017 pending trial on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Aravind Raj For R-1 : Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate(Crl. Side) For R-2 : Mr.G.Muthuraman

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶17

This criminal original petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.750 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District.

¶18

It is a matrimonial case. The defacto complainant Mahalakshmi is present in person before me. She has been duly identified by Ms.Rajapackiam, WHC-1550, attached to the first respondent police station. The defacto complainant states that she has obtained divorce and that she has no further claims against the petitioners herein. The parties have filed a joint compromise memo.

¶19

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

¶20

1/2

¶21

2 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.1764 OF 2021

¶22

Since the parties have amicably resolved the issue, no purpose will be served in keeping the impugned prosecution alive. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are quashed. This criminal original petition is allowed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar (A.D.II)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

PMU

¶27

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. To: 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District. 2. The Inspector of Police, All women police station, Samayanallur, Madurai District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1764 of 2021 01.12.2021 RD(15.12.2021) 2P 4C

¶28

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

¶29

2/2

Ganesan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesan 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

P.Hemavathy Vs The Superintendent of police

K.Gopalakrishnan, Vs Aravind

Arumugam Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Muniappan Vs The Inspector of Police

L.Mohamed Asarudeen Vs The Inspector of Police

Mathan Vs The Sub Inspector of police