Allowed

Vishnu v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Jul 2023CRL OP/7552/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the parties filed a signed joint compromise memo and appeared in person, enabling an amicable settlement despite a non-compoundable offence.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the FIR in Crime No.1141 of 2017; each petitioner to pay Rs.2,500 as costs to the President, Tamil Nadu.

Vishnu Vs the Inspector of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.7552 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P No.7552 of 2023

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.No.4828 of 2023

¶9

1.Vishnu

¶10

2.Nithiya Raj

¶11

3.Yuvaraj 4.Bharath @ Barath 5.Mohan @ Mohan Kumar 6.Raj @ Raj Kumar

¶12

...Petitioners

¶13

vs.

¶14

1.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, J-8, Neelangarai Police Station, Chennai District.

¶15

2.George Fernandes

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

PRAYER:

¶18

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No.1141 of 2017 dated 15.10.2017 on the file of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same.

¶19

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

¶20

Page No.1/5

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.7552 of 2023

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mohan Raj For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate, for R1

¶23

Mr.G.Magesh Raj for R2 ********

¶24

ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

No.1141 of 2017, pending on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶27

The case is still at the stage of investigation. The parties have decided

¶28

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

¶29

The Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which

¶30

have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present

¶31

in person before this Court. In the joint compromise memo, it has been stated that the petitioner and the second respondent had entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in Crime No.1141 of 2017. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2/5

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.7552 of 2023

¶34

amicable settlement between themselves.

¶35

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.1141 of 2017, on the file of the 1^st respondent Police.

¶36

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.1141 of 2017, on the file of the 1^st respondent police, is quashed and the terms of affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order. Each of the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) as costs, to the credit of the President, Tamil Nadu

¶37

Advocates Clerk Association, Madras High Court, Chennai (Indian Bank, High Court Branch, A/c No.484026006, IFSC Code:IDIB000M157) , within

¶38

a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3/5

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.7552 of 2023

¶40

file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the

¶41

Registry. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶42

24.07.2023

¶43

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

¶44

¶45

The Inspector of Police, J-8, Neelangarai Police Station, Chennai District.

¶46

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

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4/5

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.7552 of 2023

¶49

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. nsa

¶50

Crl.O.P No.7552 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.4828 of 2023

¶51

24.07.2023

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5/5

Vishnu v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu 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

L.Suresh Vs the Inspector of Police

A.N.Ramakrishnan Vs Colonel. N.Venugopal (Retd)

Rajaprakash Vs Inspector of Police

R.Magi Vs Director General of Police

Gandhi Vs State Rep.by

K.Chandran Vs State Rep by