Allowed

Vijayapandian @ Dinesh v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Nov 2021CRL OP(MD)/1967/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings. The de-facto complainant and aggrieved person appeared, identified by police, and filed a compromise memo expressing no wish to proceed. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings as keeping them alive was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The impugned criminal proceedings in S.C.No.50 of 2018 were quashed. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

Vijayapandian @ Dinesh Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1967 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.11.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1967 of 2021

¶5

Vijayapandian @ Dinesh

¶6

... Petitioner/Sole Accused vs.

¶7

1.The Inspector of Police, B5 Southgate Police Station (L & O), Madurai City. (Crime No.9 of 2015) ... 1^st Respondent/Complainant 2.Tamilarasi ... 2^nd Respondent/ De-facto Complainant 3.Sasikumar ... 3^rd Respondent/

¶8

Aggrieved person

¶9

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records in S.C.No.50 of 2018 in Crime No.9 of 2015 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramu For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 For Respondents : Mr.T.Balakrishnan 2 & 3

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.50 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

¶13

The de-facto complainant as well as aggrieved person are present in person before this Court. They have been duly identified by Mr.M.Balasubramanian, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, attached with the first respondent police station. The parties have filed memo of compromise. The de-facto complainant and aggrieved person have made it clear that they do no want to pursue the matter. In these circumstances, keeping the prosecution alive is wholly unnecessary. In the interest of justice, the impugned proceedings are quashed and accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶14

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶15

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

¶16

1/2

¶17

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1967 of 2021

¶18

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.

¶19

¶20

1.The I^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

¶21

2.The Inspector of Police, B5 Southgate Police Station (L & O), Madurai City.

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1967 of 2021 26.11.2021

¶24

AM(CO)

¶25

GC(21.12.2021) 2P 4C

¶26

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

¶27

2/2

Vijayapandian @ Dinesh v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayapandian @ Dinesh 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

Vengaiya @ Vengaiyan Vs The Inspector of Police

Jawahar Sathyaseelan Vs The Inspector of Police

Chandra Vs the Inspector General of Police

Saravanapandi Vs The Inspector of Police

Subramanian.S Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Pugalvanthan.R Vs the Inspector of Police