Allowed

Ayyanar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC2 Aug 2023CRL OP/2613/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR. The case was at the investigation stage, but parties filed a Joint Memo of Compromise. The Court was satisfied with the amicable settlement and the absence of useful purpose in keeping the FIR pending, citing Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.644 of 2022 and consequent proceedings are quashed.

Ayyanar Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.2613 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P No.2613 of 2023

¶7

1.Ayyanar

¶8

2.Velmurugan 3.Vicky @ Vignesh

¶9

4.Amutha

¶10

...Petitioners

¶11

vs.

¶12

1.The State Rep by its, The Inspector of Police, Ulundurpet Police Station, Ulundurpet, Kallakurichi District (Crime No.644 of 2022)

2.Rajakumari

...Respondents

PRAYER:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the record and quash the FIR in Crime No.644 of 2022 pending on the file of first respondent based on the compromise.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.Krishnasamy Chinnasamy For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate, for R1

¶18

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

¶19

Page No.1/4

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.2613 of 2023

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.644 of 2022, pending on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶23

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

¶24

The Joint Memo of Compromise and the affidavit of the de facto complainant have been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent/ de facto complainant and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court. In the joint compromise memo it has been stated that the petitioner and the second respondent had entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in Crime No.644 of 2022. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶25

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2/4

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.2613 of 2023

¶27

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 First Information Report in Crime No.644 of 2022, on the file of the 1^st respondent Police.

¶28

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.644 of 2022, on the file of the 1^st respondent police, is quashed and the terms of affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶29

02.08.2023

¶30

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

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3/4

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.2613 of 2023

¶33

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. nsa

¶34

¶35