Allowed

Logesh v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Jul 2023CRL OP/5997/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Court quashed an FIR where the parties amicably settled the dispute and filed a joint compromise memo. The Court held that no useful purpose serves keeping the FIR pending given the settlement.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime No. 1256 of 2020 is quashed; the terms of the affidavit form part of the order; petitioner to pay Rs. 1000 costs.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P No.5997 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 No.5997 of 2023

Logesh

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Inspector of Police, T-4, Maduravoyal Police station, Chennai.

¶11

Sandhanalakshmi @ Sandiya ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No.1256 of 2020 on the file of th 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Surendran For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath (R1) Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in

¶16

Crime No.1256 of 2020, pending on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶17

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Crl.O.P No.5997 of 2023

¶19

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

¶20

The Joint Compromise Memo, dated 08.03.2023 has been filed before this Court by the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner and the second respondent were present along with their child Kavin and they were identified by the respondent Police, Ms.M.Ishwariya, WPC 53981, who was also present at the time of hearing. In order to identify, the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant, they have produced the copy of the Aadhaar Cards and and the same shall form part of the record . In the Affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner and the second respondent have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in Crime No.1256 of 2020. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶21

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Crl.O.P No.5997 of 2023

¶23

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 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.1256 of 2020, on the file of the 1^st respondent Police.

¶24

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.1256 of 2020, on the file of the 1^st respondent police, is quashed and the terms of affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order. [The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as costs, to the credit of the Chief Justice Relief

¶25

Fund (payable in Accounts Section of the High Court Registry)] , within

¶26

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Crl.O.P No.5997 of 2023

¶28

vum

¶29

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶30

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].

¶31

07.07.2023

¶32

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

¶33

The Inspector of Police, T-4, Maduravoyal Police station, Chennai.

¶34

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶35

Crl.O.P No.5997 of 2023

¶36

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

Logesh v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Logesh v. the Inspector of Police

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

Gokulnath Vs the State Rep.by Its

Gerald Kinsley Vs Mary Suji

H.Majuba Vs State Rep by