Allowed

Rajaprakash v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Jul 2023CRL OP/8630/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Madras allowed Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash pending criminal proceedings. The court found that parties had reached an amicable settlement, a sum was paid to the complainant, and the accused promised not to misuse future evidence. Quashing was done in exercise of inherent powers. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petitions allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.16 of 2021 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee, quashed.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P.Nos.8630 & 18048 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.Nos.8630 and 18048 of 2022 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.5021 & 11934 of 2022

¶8

Rajaprakash

¶9

Francis

¶10

Sagayam

¶11

Prabha .. Petitioners/Accused 1-3&5 in Crl OP No.8630 of 2022

¶12

Arum ...Petitioner /Accused No.4 in Crl OP No.18048 of 2022

¶13

Vs.

¶14

The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Chennai District ..Respondent /Complainant

¶15

Ruby Rajathi @ Daina .. Respondent/Defacto complainant

¶16

COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in CC No.16 of 2021 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1,

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.O.P.Nos.8630 & 18048 of 2022

¶20

Poonamalle in Crime No.06 of 2018.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Silambuselvan

¶22

in both Crl OPs

¶23

For Respondent No.1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl Side)

¶24

For Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.Nagarajan in both Crl OPs

¶25

*****

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call

¶28

for the records pertaining to the proceedings in CC No.16 of 2021, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee and quash the same.

¶29

The case is still at the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶30

The Common compromise affidavit has been filed by the

¶31

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

¶32

2/6

¶33

Crl.O.P.Nos.8630 & 18048 of 2022

¶34

2^nd respondent/de-facto complainant before this Court. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mrs.V.Saroja, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, W29, All Women Police Station, Avadi. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioners and the second respondent have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in CC No.16 of 2021. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶35

The defacto complainant who was present before this Court stated that the memory card which formed part of the mobile phone and in which, the conversations were recorded and photos were taken is yet to be handed over to her. The learned Government Advocate on instructions submitted that such a memory card was not recovered from the accused persons during the course of investigation. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the memory card is not available with the

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

Crl.O.P.Nos.8630 & 18048 of 2022

¶39

petitioners. The said stand taken by the petitioners is hereby recorded. It is made clear that if in future the memory card is found to be available with the accused persons and the same is any where misused by them, this Court will initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioners / accused persons for making a false statement before the Court. This observation made by this Court will sufficiently safeguard the interest of the defacto complainant. One of the terms of the settlement was that a sum of Rs.50,000/will be handed over to the defacto complainant and the said amount was handed over today in the Court.

¶40

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

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

Crl.O.P.Nos.8630 & 18048 of 2022

¶44

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.16 of 2021, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee.

¶45

These Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed and as a

¶46

sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.16 of 2021, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee, is quashed and the terms

¶47

of affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶48

21.07.2023

¶49

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral citation:Yes/No

¶50

rka

¶51

¶52

The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee

¶53

The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Chennai District.

¶54

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras

¶55

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

¶56

5/6

¶57

Crl.O.P.Nos.8630 & 18048 of 2022

¶58

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J

¶59

rka

¶60

Crl.O.P.Nos.8630 and 18048 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.5021 & 11934 of 2022

¶61

21.07.2023

¶62

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

¶63

6/6

Rajaprakash v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaprakash v. 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

Rajendran Vs The Inspector of Police

Senthilvel Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Ganesan Vs State Rep by

Mohamed Nazeer Vs State of Inspector of Police

L.Suresh Vs the Inspector of Police

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