Allowed

Abdullah@Sethappa v. the State Rep by

Madras HC16 Mar 2022CRL OP/5427/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after finding that the parties had amicably settled the dispute and filed a compromise affidavit, citing Supreme Court guidelines allowing quashing in such circumstances during investigation.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the First Information Report in Crime No.1731 of 2020; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Abdullah@Sethappa Vs the State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.03.2022

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.5427 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.2956 of 2022

¶6

Abdullah @ Sethappa 2. Nijamali 3. Dhinakaran 4. Iman Ali ...Petitioners Vs.

¶7

The State by Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Town Police Station, Thiruvarur.

¶8

...1^st Respondent / Complainant

¶9

Mohamed Nasar

¶10

...2^nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant

¶11

PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to FIR in Crime No.1731 of 2020 on the file of Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Town Police Station, Thiruvarur, and quash the same as abuse of process.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Ganesh Pandian

¶13

For R1 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor. For R2 : No appearance

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.1731 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC, 1860.

¶16

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

¶17

The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶18

A Compromise Affidavit has been filed before this Court,

¶19

which have been signed by the deponent and his counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel. This Court also enquired parties of both side and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶20

Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be

¶21

served in keeping the First Information Report pending. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the First Information Report in Crime No. 1296 of 2021.

¶22

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.1731 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed and the compromise Affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

(*)Herein enclosed the xerox copy of the compromise Affidavit.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

nti/nr

¶29

¶30

The Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Town Police Station, Thiruvarur.

¶31

The Public Prosecutor,

¶32

High Court of Madras.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.C.Ganesh Pandian, Advocate, S.R.No.17960

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.5427 of 2022

¶35

GPL[co]

¶36

NSK 20/04/2022

¶37

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

Abdullah@Sethappa v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdullah@Sethappa v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Martin Anandraj Vs the State Rep by

S.Senthurkumaran Vs the State Rep by

I.P.Yesudoss Vs the Commissioner of Police

M.B.Abdul Vathooth Vs Inspector of Police

Venkatesh Vs the Superintendent of Police

Station House Officer Vs M.P.Adimoolam