Quashed

Balamurugan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Nov 2021CRL OP(MD)/2361/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Court quashed the FIR as illegal because the de facto complainant had settled the dispute via a joint compromise memo and wished to withdraw the complaint, serving no purpose in maintaining prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No.10 of 2019 is quashed and the criminal original petition is allowed.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2361 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.11.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2361 of 2021

¶7

1.Balamurugan 2.Rajendran 3.Savithri

4.Chandra

5.Chithra

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.10 of 2019) 2.Shanmugalakshmi ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2019 on the file of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same as illegal.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1. Mr.P.Chellapandian for R2.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This criminal original petition has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2019 registered on the file of the first respondent.

¶18

2.The defacto complainant/Shanmugalakshmi is present before this Court in person. She has been duly identified by Mrs.B.Navamani, Sub Inspector of Police attached to first respondent police station. The parties have filed a memo of joint compromise dated 17.12.2020. The defacto complainant does not want to pursue the complaint. When the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the deafcto complainant does not want to pursue the complaint, no purpose will be served in keeping the impugned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/2

¶20

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2361 of 2021

¶21

prosecution alive. In the interest of justice, the impugned FIR is quashed and the criminal original petition is allowed.

¶22

Assistant Registrar (W)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

ias

¶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

To:

¶28

1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶29

The Additional Public prosecutor,

¶30

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

¶31

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2361 of 2021 23.11.2021

¶32

DJ(CO)

¶33

KB(04.12.2021) 2P 3C

¶34

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

¶35

2/2

Balamurugan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balamurugan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muniyandi Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Selvaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Selva Vinayagam Vs The Inspector of Police

Ajith@Ajithkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Vengai Vs The Inspector of Police

Noorullah Vs The Inspector of Police