The High Court quashed an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after verifying that the parties had reached an amicable settlement and signed a Joint Memo of Compromise, citing Supreme Court guidelines.
First Information Report in Crime No. 199 of 2013 quashed; petitioners directed to pay Rs. 1500 each as costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No. 7080 of 2022 and
Crl.M.P.No. 4044 of 2022
1. K.E.Sekar
2. K.S.Arul
3. K.S.Boobhalan
.. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Sub Inspector of Police,
2. K.E.Mohanavelu ... Respondents PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.7080 of 2022 : Criminal Original Petition filed
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the
records in FIR in Crime No.199 of 2013 dated 24.06.2013 on the file of 1 st
respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Venkatesan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/6
O R D E R
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No. 199 of 2013, pending on the file of the 1st respondent.
decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
which have been signed by the petitioners and the defacto complainant and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.K.Velu, R.K.Pettai Police Station, R.K.Pettai Taluk, Tiruvallur District. In the joint compromise memo, it has been stated that the petitioners and the second respondent had entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in Crime No. 199 of 2013. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
2/6
3/6
High Court, Chennai (Indian Bank, High Court Branch, A/c No.484026006, IFSC Code:IDIB000M157) , within a period of two
weeks 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.
25.07.2023
Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral citation:Yes/No rka Note : Issue order copy on 07.08.2023
To
4/6
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
rka
Crl.O.P.No.7080 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.4044 of 2022
5/6
25.07.2023
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR should be quashed despite the offences being non-compoundable given the mutual compromise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of GujrathReferred¶29
2017 9 SCC 641(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) · Who else cites this
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and AnotherReferred¶29
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.E.Sekar
K.S.Arul
K.S.Boobhalan
The Sub Inspector of Police, D4, R.K Pettai Police Station
K.E.Mohanavelu
N.Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
