Allowed

Gokulnath v. the State Rep.by Its

Madras HC7 Jul 2023CRL OP/3705/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash FIRs in Crime Nos. 2 and 3 of 2023. The Court observed that parties had compromised the dispute amicably via joint compromise memos despite the offences being non-compoundable. Applying Supreme Court guidelines, the Court quashed the FIRs.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime Nos. 2 and 3 of 2023 is quashed. The proceedings in said crimes are dismissed.

Gokulnath Vs the State Rep.by Its — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P Nos.3705 and 6765 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P Nos.3705 and 6765 of 2023 and Crl.M.P Nos.2314 and 4259 of 2023

¶7

Crl.O.P No.3705 of 2023

¶8

Gokulnath ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, T2 Chrompet Police station, Tambaram City. (Crime No.2 of 2023) 2. M.R.Lakshmanasamy ... Respondents

¶11

Crl.O.P No.6765 of 2023

¶12

M.R.Lakshmanasamy

¶13

Varshini

¶14

... Petitioners Vs.

¶15

The State Rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Chrompet Police station, Tambaram City. 2. V.Gokulnath ... Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

1/6

¶18

Crl.O.P Nos.3705 and 6765 of 2023

¶19

Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the Crime No.2 of 2023 and Crime No.3 of 2023 on the file of the 1^st respondent Police and quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioner in Crl.O.P No.3705 of 2023 & 2^nd respondent in Crl.O.P No.6765 of 2023 : Mr.B.Kumarasamy

¶21

For Petitioners in Crl.O.P No.6765 of 2023 & 2^nd respondent in Crl.O.P No.3705 of 2023 : Mr.K.Prabakaran For 1^st Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath in both cases Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶22

COMMON ORDER

¶23

The Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the FIR in

¶24

Crime Nos.2 and 3 of 2023, pending on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶25

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

¶26

decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among

¶27

themselves.

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.O.P Nos.3705 and 6765 of 2023

¶30

The Joint Compromise Memos, dated 13.06.2023 have been filed before this Court by the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent in the respective cases. All the parties were also present and they were identified by the respondent Police, D.Arputham, Sub Inspector of Police, T2 Chrompet Police station, Tambaram, who was also present at the time of hearing. In order to identify, the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant in both the cases have produced the copy of the Aadhaar Card and and the same shall form part of the record . In the joint Compromise memo, it has been stated that the petitioners and the second respondent have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in Crime Nos.2 and 3 of 2023. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.O.P Nos.3705 and 6765 of 2023

¶34

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 Nos.2 and 3 of 2023, on the file of the 1^st respondent Police.

¶35

The Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime Nos.2 and 3 of 2023, on the file of the 1^st respondent police, are quashed and the terms of affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order. [The petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/(Rupees One Thousand only) for their respective case as costs, to the credit of the Chief Justice Relief Fund (payable in Accounts Section of the High Court Registry)] , within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry]. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.

¶36

07.07.2023

¶37

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order vum

¶38

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

¶39

Crl.O.P Nos.3705 and 6765 of 2023

¶40

¶41

The Inspector of Police, T2 Chrompet Police station, Tambaram City.

¶42

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.O.P Nos.3705 and 6765 of 2023

¶45

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶46

vum

¶47

Crl.O.P Nos.3705 and 6765 of 2023 and Crl.M.P Nos.2314 and 4259 of 2023

¶48

07.07.2023

¶49

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

Gokulnath v. the State Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokulnath v. the State Rep.by Its

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

Krishnanpillai, Vs the Inspector of Police

M.R.Vijayabhaskar Vs the Inspector of Police

Dr.K.Rayar Vs the Dr.K.Ponmudi Ex M.L.A

Logesh Vs the Inspector of Police

Gerald Kinsley Vs Mary Suji

H.Majuba Vs State Rep by