Allowed

S.Soundarrajan v. the State Rep.by Its

Madras HC3 Aug 2023CRL OP/4393/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed an Original Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings C.C.No.746 of 2022. Despite non-compoundable offences, the Court quashed the case after verifying an affidavit and affidavit evidence confirming that the parties had amicably settled their dispute.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.746 of 2022 pending before the Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpattu are quashed.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.4393 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P No.4393 of 2023

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.Nos.2769 & 2770 of 2023

¶9

1.S.Soundarrajan

¶10

2.S.Seshadri

¶11

3.S.Sriram

4.S.Murali

...Petitioners

vs.

1.State rep by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Chengalpattu (C.C.No.15 of 2022)

2.Abhinaya

...Respondents

PRAYER:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to C.C.No.746 of 2022 before the Additional Mahil Court, Chengalpet and quash the same.

¶20

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

¶21

Page No.1/4

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.4393 of 2023

¶23

For Petitioners : Ms.Usha Rani For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate, for R1 Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi, for R2

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.746 of 2022, pending on the file of Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpattu and quash the same.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

3.The Compromise affidavit of the second respondent has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present before this Court. In the said compromise memo it has been stated that the petitioner and the second respondent had entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in C.C.No.746 of 2022. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶29

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

¶30

Page No.2/4

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.4393 of 2023

¶32

Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping

¶33

the case 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 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 C.C.No.746 of 2022, pending on the file of Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.

¶34

5.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.746 of 2022, pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpattu is quashed and the terms of affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶35

03.08.2023

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

Page No.3/4

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.4393 of 2023

¶40

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. nsa

¶41

¶42

1.The Additional Mahil Court, Chengalpet

¶43

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Chengalpattu (C.C.No.15 of 2022)

¶44

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104..

¶45

Crl.O.P No.4393 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.Nos.2769 & 2770 of 2023

¶46

03.08.2023

¶47

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

S.Soundarrajan v. the State Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Soundarrajan 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

Crescent Therapeutics Limited Vs Union of India

K.Narendhiran Vs The District Collector

Chinnasamy Vs The District Collector

T.Ponnambalam Vs State by

Viswanathan Vs State Rep.by

A.K.S.Hansraj Vs State Rep by