Allowed

Mahendran v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Nov 2021CRL OP(MD)/3187/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition filed to quash FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed as defacto complainant accepted petitioners' regret, did not wish to pursue further, and parties filed a joint compromise memo with an undertaking given.

What did the court decide?

Impugned prosecution quashed and criminal original petition allowed upon filing of joint compromise memo and acceptance of undertaking.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P(MD)No.3187 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.11.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.3187 of 2021

¶7

1.Mahendran

¶8

2.Petchiammal

¶9

3.Alagu Jothi ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 Vs.

¶10

1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.100 of 2016) ... 1^st Respondent/ Complainant

¶11

2.Karthigaisamy ... 2^nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

¶12

Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.100 of 2016 dated 03.03.2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Police Station, Madurai District and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1. Mr.A.Baalaji for R2

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.100 of 2016 registered on the file of the first respondent.

¶16

2.The defacto complainant/Karthigaisamy is present before this Court in person. He has been duly identified by Mr.R.Krishnamoorthi, Sub Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station. The petitioners have expressed their regret for their conduct. The same has also been accepted by the defacto complainant. The petitioners gave an undertaking that they will conduct themselves appropriately in future. Since the defacto complainant does not want to pursue the matter any further and the parties have also filed a memo of compromise, the impugned prosecution is quashed and the criminal original petition is allowed.

¶17

Assistant Registrar (P&A)

¶18

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶19

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

¶20

1/2

¶21

Crl.O.P(MD)No.3187 of 2021

¶22

Ias

¶23

Enclosed herewith Copy of the Joint Compromise Memo

¶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

To:

¶26

1.The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, Madurai District.

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P(MD)No.3187 of 2021 17.11.2021

¶29

RD(30.12.2021) 2P 3C

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

Mahendran v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendran 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

Gobi Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Senthilkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Arun Prabhu Vs The Inspector of Police

Mariappan Vs The Inspector of Police

Nagendraprabhu Vs The Inspector of Police

Savarirayan Vs The Commissioner of Police