Allowed

Kumar v. State Rep by

Madras HC11 Aug 2023CRL OP/18187/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. referencing a compromise memo signed with the second respondent. The de-facto complainant admitted the alleged incident never occurred. The court quashed the case despite non-compoundable offences, citing reconciliation and Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; proceedings in S.C.No.33 of 2023 quashed; terms of compromise affidavit made part of the order.

Kumar Vs State Rep by — Money Laundering | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P No.18187 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P No.18187 of 2023

¶7

1.Kumar S/o.Chinnadurai

2.Kalaimani

S/o.Kaliyaperumal

... Petitioners

vs.

1.The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Sendurai Police Station, Ariyalur District. (Crime No.23 of 2022)

¶13

2.Shanmuga Sundaram S/o.Somasundaram ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in S.C.No.33 of 2023 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Gokulakrishnan

¶16

For Respondent-1 : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶17

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Crl.O.P No.18187 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in S.C.No.33 of 2023, pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur and quash the same.

¶21

The case is still at the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties

¶22

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

¶23

A Joint Memo of Compromise dated 02.08.2023 signed by both petitioners and second respondent/ de facto complainant has been filed before this Court. A compromise affidavit has also been filed by the second respondent/de-facto complainant before this Court. The petitioners and second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.S.Prabhu, HC, Sendurai Police Station, Ariyalur District. In the affidavit it has been stated that the petitioners and the second respondent have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in S.C.No.33 of 2023.

¶24

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Crl.O.P No.18187 of 2023

¶26

The de-facto complainant Shanmuga Sundaram was present before this Court. This Court enquired him as to whether the alleged incident had happened on 25.01.2022 as stated in the complaint. The second respondent categorically stated that no such incident took place and that the respondent Police took a complaint from him and he was not even aware as to what was written in the complaint. He further stated that the petitioners are known to him and they belong to the same place.

¶27

In a case of this nature, which involves offences under Sections 392 and 397 of I.P.C., this Court normally quash the proceedings. However, the specific stand taken by the second respondent clearly shows that the case ultimately will end up only in acquittal. That apart, it is stated that there is one previous case against the petitioners under the Gaming Act. In the peculiar facts of this case, this Court is inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶28

Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble

¶29

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Crl.O.P No.18187 of 2023

¶31

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 Suprme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10 , this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the case in S.C.No.33 of 2023, pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur.

¶32

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in S.C.No.33 of 2023, pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, is quashed and the terms of affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶33

11.08.2023

¶34

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order rsi

¶35

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Crl.O.P No.18187 of 2023

¶37

¶38

1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur.

¶39

2.The Inspector of Police, Sendurai Police Station, Ariyalur District.

¶40

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.

¶41

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

Crl.O.P No.18187 of 2023

¶43

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶44

rsi

¶45

Crl.O.P No.18187 of 2023

¶46

11.08.2023

¶47

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Kumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar v. 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

Ragunathan Vs State Rep by

K.a.Manoharan Vs State Represented by Its

K.a.Manoharan Vs the State Rep by Its

Dinesh @ Pambu Dinesh Vs the State Rep by Its

M.Rajeswari Vs the Superintendent of Police

R.Vennila Vs the Superintendent of Police