Allowed

Devarajan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Dec 2021CRL OP(MD)/950/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quick order, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The High Court, noting a joint compromise memo filed by the parties and the defacto complainant's express statement that he does not wish to pursue the complaint, held that the impugned prosecution had no purpose in being continued. The proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2020 wer

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2020 were quashed. The Criminal Original Petition was allowed.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P(MD)No.950 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.12.2021 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶4

Crl.O.P(MD)No.950 of 2021

¶5

1.Devarajan 2.Poothangam

¶6

... Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch/Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. (In Crime No.7 of 2014) ... Respondent / Complainant 2.S.R.Vijayan ... Respondent / Defacto Complainant

¶9

Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.44 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Russel Raj For Respondent : Mr.A.Albert James, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1. Mr.S.Ramakrishnan for R2.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil.

¶13

2.The defacto complainant/S.R.Vijayan is present before this Court in person. He has been duly identified by Ms.G.Freeda, WHC 2859 attached to first respondent police station. The defacto complainant categorically states before this Court that he does not want to pursue the complaint. The parties have also filed a memo of joint compromise dated 07.01.2021. Since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, no purpose will be served in keeping the impugned prosecution alive. The defacto complainant does not want to pursue the complaint. When the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the deafcto complainant does https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not want to pursue the complaint, no purpose will be served in

¶14

1/2

¶15

Crl.O.P(MD)No.950 of 2021

¶16

keeping the impugned prosecution alive. The impugned proceedings are quashed. The criminal original petition is allowed.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS II)

¶18

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶19

ias

¶20

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.

¶21

To: (Encl : Joint Compromise Memo) 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil.

¶22

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch/Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶23

Crl.O.P(MD)No.950 of 2021 03.12.2021

¶24

NSN(CO) SB(13.12.2021) 2P 4C

¶25

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

¶26

2/2

Devarajan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devarajan 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

Kumar Singh Vs M.Sargunam

K.Naganatha Sethupathy Vs The Inspector of Police

Korsaon Jaisan Vs The Inspector of Police

Velusamy Vs The Inspector of Police

Rengam Vs The Inspector of Police

Poongulathal Vs The Superintendent of Police