Allowed

Mr.M.Munuswamy, v. M.Sangeetha Shankari

Madras HC12 Nov 2021CRL RC/1171/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition seeking to set aside a lower court's order of taking cognizance of a domestic offence. The court recorded a joint compromise memo and closed the criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition allowed; order of Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance set aside; C.C.No.249 of 2014 and S.T.C.No.143 of 2011 quashed and closed.

Mr.M.Munuswamy, Vs M.Sangeetha Shankari — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE:12.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶5

CRL.R.C.NO.1171 OF 2014

¶6

1.M.Munuswamy

¶7

2.Shanthini Munuswamy

¶8

3.M.Yokash

¶9

.Vs.

¶10

1.M.Sangeetha Shankari

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, S-6, Shankar Nagar Police Station, Chennai – 600075.

¶12

PRAYER :

¶13

Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order, dated 11.04.2014 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram passed in the Protest Petition in Crime No.373 of 2010, on the file of the second respondent herein and taken on file as C.C.No.249 of 2014 and thereby, allow the present Revision Petition.

¶14

For Petitioners: Mr.A.Devnarenderan

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Revision Petition No.1171 of 2014 is filed against the order dated 11.04.2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, whereby, the learned Judicial Magistrate, after considering the Protest Petition filed by the first

¶17

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

¶18

respondent/defacto complainant, thought it fit to take the case on file as prima facie case made out and took cognizance of the offences under Section 341, 323, 294-B, 506(i) of Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The facts of this case are that the first and second petitioners are the parents of the first respondent. The third petitioner is the brother of the first respondent. As they were not in good terms, there was a wordy altercation, occurred on 30.06.2010 and pursuant to that occurrence, the petitioners lodged a complaint and a case was registered in Crime No.372 of 2010 as against the first respondent and her husband.

¶20

On a counter complaint lodged by the first respondent, a case in Crime No.373 of 2010 was registered as against the petitioners.

¶21

Now, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Petition, the differences between the family members have been ironed out and they have filed a joint compromise memo before this Court, dated 26.08.2021.

¶22

The parties also appeared before this Court virtually. Today, Mr.Britto Selvaraj, S.I of Police, S6-Shankar Nagar Police Station is also present.

¶23

The learned Counsel for both sides submitted that the matter had been settled amicably between the parties and requested that both the criminal cases may be closed, so as to promote peace in the family.

¶24

Accordingly, the memorandum of compromise is recorded and this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in terms of the said compromise and shall form part of this order. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, dated 11.04.2014, taking cognizance of the offences is set aside and accordingly, C.C.No.249 of 2014 is closed. Similarly, the other case in S.T.C.No.143 of 2011, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram is also quashed, as per the compromise. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

grs

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. 2.The Inspector of Police, S-6, Shankar Nagar Police Station, Chennai – 600075. +3ccs to M/s.B.F.S.Legal, Advocate, S.R.No.58307 Crl.R.C.No.1171 of 2014 BP(CO) PM/01/12/2021

¶33

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

Mr.M.Munuswamy, v. M.Sangeetha Shankari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.M.Munuswamy, v. M.Sangeetha Shankari

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

Munusamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Arikrishna Kounder, Vs Sekar

Eden Exports Company Vs Hind Rocess Private Ltd.

Lakshmanan Vs Devaki

Ganesh @ Ganesan Vs the State Rep by Its

K.Anjali, F/a 52 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police