Allowed

Ranjith v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC2 Feb 2021CRL OP(MD)/892/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.1209 of 2020. The quashing was ordered based on a recorded joint compromise memo filed by the petitioners and the private respondents after personal inquiry into the terms of compromise.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of entire proceedings in Crime No.1209 of 2020 in respect of the petitioners and terms of joint compromise memo forming part of the order.

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

¶1

Crl.OP(MD)No.892 of 2021

¶2

1.Ranjith

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.02.2021 CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Crl.OP(MD)No.892 of 2021

¶5

1.Ranjith 2.Manimaran 3.James 4.Johnkumar ... Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

1.State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai. (Crime No.1209 of 2020)

¶8

2.Jesuraja 3.Jeyamarry ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.1209 of 2020, dated 05.11.2020 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Sivabalan For R1 : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 & R3 : Mr.PL.S.Solai Alagan

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.1209 of 2020 of Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai, on the basis of a joint compromise memo filed by the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3.

¶13

2.The contention of the petitioners is that based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered First Information Report in Crime No.1209 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506 (ii) of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002, against the petitioners.

¶14

3.The further contention of the petitioners is that they https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ want to compromise the issue between them and the respondents 2

¶15

1/3

¶16

Crl.OP(MD)No.892 of 2021

¶17

and 3 amicably. A joint memo of compromise was filed, which has been duly signed by the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 and also by their respective counsels.

¶18

4.The petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 appeared in person before this Court along with their counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards. They were also identified by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr.C.Krishnan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, B3, Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai. Both the parties to compromise were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence, the Compromise Memo is recorded.

¶19

5.Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners and also in view of the joint compromise memo, dated 11.01.2021, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending.

¶20

6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.1209 of 2020 of Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order.

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

Encl:Xerox copy of joint compromise memo

¶24

SJI

¶25

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.

¶26

¶27

1.The Inspector of Police, Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶28

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

¶29

2/3

¶30

Crl.OP(MD)No.892 of 2021

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.OP(MD)No.892 of 2021 02.02.2021

¶33

KM (19.02.2021) 3P 3C

¶34

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

¶35

3/3

Ranjith v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjith 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

Balamuruga Ganesh Vs The Superintendent of Police

Arumugam.K Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Murugan @ Balamurugan Vs The Superintendent of Police

Shanthi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Karthick.S Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Jesuraja Vs The Inspector of Police