Allowed

Shan Basha v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Aug 2023CRL OP/1689/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR in Crime No.735 of 2022 in an original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that an amicable settlement between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant rendered further proceedings useless, citing Supreme Court guidelines. Costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime No.735 of 2022 is quashed and the proceeding is stayed.

Shan Basha Vs Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.1689 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.08.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.1689 of 2023

¶7

Shan Basha .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai.

¶10

Cr.No.735 of 2022.

¶11

Jesu Packiaraj .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.735 of 2022 (pending investigation) on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and the entire proceedings insofar as it relates to the petitioner is concerned.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.K.M.Mrithun Jayan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1

¶15

: Mr.N.Selvarajanfor R2

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

1/5

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.1689 of 2023

¶20

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.735 of 2022, pending on the file of the first respondent.

¶21

The case is still at the stage of investigation. The parties have

¶22

decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶23

The affidavit dated 10.01.2023 of the second respondent / de-facto

¶24

complainant and the joint memo of compromise entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent / de-facto complainant have been filed before this Court. The petitioner and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court. In order to identify the respective parties, they have also produced the copies of the Aadhaar Cards and the Aadhaar Cards are made part of the record. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner and the second respondent had entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in Crime No.735 of 2022. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties

¶25

have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶26

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

¶27

2/5

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.1689 of 2023

¶29

Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. 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), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10 , this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.735 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent Police.

¶30

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the

¶31

proceedings in Crime No.735 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent Police, is quashed and the terms of affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order. The petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as costs, to the credit of the President, Tamil Nadu

¶32

Advocates Clerk Association, Madras High Court, Chennai (Indian Bank,

¶33

High Court Branch, A/c No.484026006, IFSC Code:IDIB000M157) ,

¶34

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

¶35

3/5

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.1689 of 2023

¶37

within a period of one week from today and file a photocopy of the receipt

¶38

along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry.

¶39

01.08.2023

¶40

Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : yes/no grs

¶41

¶42

The Inspector of Police, M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai.

¶43

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶44

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

¶45

4/5

¶46

Crl.O.P.No.1689 of 2023

¶47

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶48

grs

¶49

Crl.O.P.No.1689 of 2023

¶50

01.08.2023

¶51

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

¶52

5/5

Shan Basha v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shan Basha v. Inspector of Police

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

K.Parameswaran Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Ragu Vs State Rep by

U.Ravi Varman Vs State Rep by

Rajammal Vs State by Inspector of Police

T.Sunil Ross Vs S.Esudian

G.Shanthi Vs N.Chitra