Allowed

Thanji Suresh @ Sureshkumar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Dec 2021CRL OP(MD)/2671/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR in Crime No. 337 of 2020 and allowed the Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the de facto complainant sought to withdraw the complaint and a joint compromise was reached between parties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR registered in Crime No. 337 of 2020 was quashed, and the Criminal Original Petition was allowed.

Thanji Suresh @ Sureshkumar Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2671 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.12.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶5

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2671 of 2021

¶6

1.Thanji Suresh @ Sureshkumar

¶7

2.Muthupandi

¶8

3.Satheesh @ Sarvesh Kumar (Died) ... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Bazaar Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

(In Crime No.337 of 2020)

¶12

2.Mareeswaran ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.337 of 2020 on the file of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr. T.Veerakumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1. Mr.G.Dinesh for R2

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This criminal original petition has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.337 of 2020 registered on the file of the first respondent.

¶17

2.The defacto complainant/Mareeswaran is present before this Court in person. He has been duly identified by Ms.Vasuki, HC 335 attached to first respondent police station. The parties have filed a memo of joint compromise dated 19.01.2021. The defacto complainant categorically states before this Court that he 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 prosecution alive. The impugned FIR is quashed. The criminal original petition is allowed.

¶18

Assistant Registrar (AD II)

¶19

// True Copy //

¶20

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶21

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

¶22

1/2

¶23

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2671 of 2021

¶24

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.

¶25

Encl:-Photocopy of Compromise Memo Attached To:

¶26

1.The Inspector of Police, Bazaar Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶27

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

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.T.VEERAKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-38061[F] dated 09/12/2021 ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.2671 of 2021 09.12.2021

¶29

MGJ(04.01.2022) 2P 4C

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

Thanji Suresh @ Sureshkumar v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thanji Suresh @ Sureshkumar 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

Menaka Vs The Inspector of Police