Allowed

Parthasarathy Gopalan v. Gopal Mahadevan

Madras HC17 Apr 2023CRL OP/1428/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash a private complaint under Section 500 IPC. The court upheld quashing after the respondents accepted an apology letter from the petitioners, rendering the proceedings unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition Crl.O.P.No.1428 of 2021 and connected Crl.M.P.Nos.844 & 847 of 2021 were allowed and the impugned proceedings under C.C.No.2312 of 2020 were quashed.

Parthasarathy Gopalan Vs Gopal Mahadevan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.1428 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.No.1428 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.844 & 847 of 2021

¶6

1.Mr.Parthasarathy Gopalan

¶7

2.Mrs.Srividya Parthasarathy

... Petitioners Vs.

Mr.Gopalan Mahadevan

... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records culminating in C.C.No.2312 of 2020, pending on the file of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioners : M/s.Arun Anbumani For Respondent : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for G.R.Associates for sole respondent

¶13

1/4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.1428 of 2021

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petition is to quash the private complaint filed under

¶18

Section 500 IPC.

¶19

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 12.04.2023, on the request of Mr.Sriram Panchu, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner this Court suggested to the respondent to explore the possibility of settlement since they are neighbours living in the same apartment. The learned senior counsels appearing for the parties sought time to seek instructions from their respective parties.

¶20

3. Today, when the matter w as called the counsel on either side represented that the petitioners have given a let ter to the respondent and his wife offering their sincere apology for having hurt their feelings. The respondent is present in person before this Court. The petitioners are also present through the Video Conferencing mode. The respondent confirms the receipt of the apology letter sent by the petitioners and has graciously agreed not to pursue the impugned complaint. Since the petitioners have expressed regret which has been now accepted by the respondent, no useful purpose

¶21

2/4

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.1428 of 2021

¶24

would be served in keeping the impugned proceeding pending i n C.C.No.2312 of 2020 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned proceeding.

¶25

4. With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶26

17.04.2023

¶27

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No shr

¶28

¶29

The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶30

3/4

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.1428 of 2021

¶33

SUNDER MOHAN. J,

¶34

shr

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.1428 of 2021 and Crl.M.P. Nos.844 & 847 of 2021

¶36

17.04.2023

¶37

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Parthasarathy Gopalan v. Gopal Mahadevan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parthasarathy Gopalan v. Gopal Mahadevan

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

Harinath Vs State Rep.by

S.Panneerselvam Vs State Rep.by

K.Rukmani Vs M/S.Rishabh Triexim LLP

Naresh Jain Vs State Rep.by

Balamurugan Vs the Food Safety Officer

R.Sudhakar Vs R.Kavitha