Allowed

Syed Imthiaz Ahamed v. the State by

Madras HC20 Apr 2023CRL OP/31286/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl. OP filed by family members to quash an FIR under Section 482 CrPC alleging offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The High Court, noting that the de facto complainant filed an affidavit agreeing to withdraw allegations and that both parties settled the matter, held that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No.8/2019 is quashed. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Syed Imthiaz Ahamed Vs the State by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl OP No.31286 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.04.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No. 31286 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No. 17057 of 2019

¶7

1.Syed Imthiaz Ahamed

2.Haji Syed Razak

3.Ammena Razak

4.Fouzia

5.Jaffar ... Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

1.The State by Inspector of Police W – 19 All Women Police Station, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

¶14

2.Z.Nasrin ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the

¶16

Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the entire records of FIR in

¶17

Crime No.8/2019 pending investigation on the file of the 1 st respondent Police and quash the same.

¶18

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

¶19

1/5

¶20

Crl OP No.31286 of 2019

¶21

For Petitioner : M/s.Radha Pandian For R1 : Mr. S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr. Rajamohamed

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petition is filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.8 of 2019 for the

¶24

alleged offences under Section 498 (A) and 406 of IPC.

¶25

2. Today, when the matter was called, the defacto complainant has

¶26

filed an affidavit stating that the parties have settled the matter and she

¶27

has agreed to withdraw the allegations in the FIR and has no objection for quashing of the same.

¶28

3. Both the parties are present today and M/s. R.Nandhini Ushaa,

¶29

Sub Inspector, W – 19 All Women Police Station, Adyar, who has appeared before this Court has identified the parties. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose would be

¶30

served in keeping the proceedings on the file of the 1 st respondent Police

¶31

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

¶32

2/5

¶33

Crl OP No.31286 of 2019

¶34

pending. Hence, the impugned F.I.R is quashed. The said affidavit is taken on record and shall form part of the order.

¶35

4. With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petition is

¶36

disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is

¶37

closed. No costs.

¶38

20.04.2023

¶39

kan Index: Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes / No

¶40

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

¶41

3/5

¶42

Crl OP No.31286 of 2019

¶43

¶44

The Inspector of Police, W – 19 All Women Police Station, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

¶45

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

¶46

4/5

¶47

Crl OP No.31286 of 2019

¶48

SUNDER MOHAN, J

¶49

kan

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.31286 of 2019

¶51

20.04.2023

¶52

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

¶53

5/5

Syed Imthiaz Ahamed v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Imthiaz Ahamed v. the State by

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

Jothilingam Vs the State Rep.by

Selvam Vs the Inspector of Police

Gunasekaran Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

T.P.K.Murugan Vs State Rep by

K.Ramesh Babu Vs State Rep. by

K.M.Palanisamy Vs the State Represented by