Allowed

Senthilbabu v. State Rep.by

Madras HC27 Apr 2023CRL OP/32137/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings. The court allowed the petition as parties reached a compromise, the second respondent died, and his daughter withdrew allegations via video conference and signed a Joint Memo of Compromise on 19.04.2023.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Final Report in C.C.No.1827 of 2019 is quashed; connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Senthilbabu Vs State Rep.by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl OP No.32137 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.04.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.32137 of 2019 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.17674 & 17675 of 2019

¶8

1.Senthilbabu

¶9

2.Guna Souwndhari

¶10

3.George Stephen

4.Sridevi

... Petitioners

Versus

1.The State Rep.by: The Inspector of Police, Thudiyalur Police Station, Coimbatore District. (Crime No.77 of 2016)

¶15

2.V.Subbaian ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.1827 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – I and to quash the same. (C.C.No. Amended as per order in Crl.M.P.No.1629 of 2020 in Crl.O.P.No.32137 of 2019 dated 10.02.2020.

¶17

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

¶18

1/5

¶19

Crl OP No.32137 of 2019

¶20

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Saranraj For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.R.Bharathkumar

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the

¶23

proceedings in C.C.No.1827 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate

¶24

– I, Coimbatore.

¶25

2.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel on either side submitted that parties have entered into a compromise and since the 2 nd respondent died on 23.07.2020, LW-2 / Santhi, daughter of the second respondent has decided to withdraw the allegations in the impugned Final Report and prayed for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.1827 of 2019 on the basis of the Joint Compromise Memo.

¶26

3.Today, all the four accused and LW-2 / daughter of the 2 nd

¶27

respondent appeared through video conferencing. It is reported that all of

¶28

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

¶29

2/5

¶30

Crl OP No.32137 of 2019

¶31

them appeared before Mr.S.Rathina Kumar, Inspector of Police, Thudiyalur Circle, Coimbatore, yesterday and informed him about the compromise between them. Their identity was also confirmed by the Inspector of Police.

¶32

4.The parties have signed the Joint Memo of Compromise dated 19.04.2023 along with the learned counsel for the petitioner, and it is taken on record. In view of the compromise, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending in C.C.No.1827 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – I, Coimbatore. Hence, the impugned Final Report is quashed.

¶33

5.With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is

¶34

allowed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are

¶35

closed.

¶36

27.04.2023

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

3/5

¶40

Crl OP No.32137 of 2019

¶41

¶42

1.The Inspector of Police, Thudiyalur Police Station, Coimbatore District.

¶43

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore.

¶44

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai – 600 104.

¶45

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

¶46

4/5

¶47

Crl OP No.32137 of 2019

¶48

SUNDER MOHAN, J

¶49

smv

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.32137 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.17674 & 17675 of 2019

¶51

27.04.2023

¶52

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

¶53

5/5

Senthilbabu v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthilbabu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Victor Paul Vs the State Rep.by

K.S.Rajagopalan Vs State Rep.by

Nagai Thiruvalluvan Vs the State, Represented by

M/S.Venkateswara Hatcheries Pvt.Ltd., Vs T.Rajendran

Tanuj Manubhai Patel Vs Sundar Lakshmi Agencies and Traders Private Limited

M.S.Mohammed Nazeemudeen Vs State Rep by