Allowed

M.Srinivasan v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Jul 2023CRL OP/8967/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed an FIR in Crime No.224 of 2022 filed on the petitioner despite the offences being non-compoundable. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court found that an amicable settlement had been reached between the parties, citing Supreme Court guidelines, and deemed continued investigation as serving no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of First Information Report in Crime No.224 of 2022; approval of compromise affidavit.

M.Srinivasan Vs Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.8967 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.07.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.8967 of 2023

M.Srinivasan

.. Petitioner

Versus

The State rep by its, The Inspector of Police, [Crime], H-3 Tondiarpet Police Station, Chennai.

¶11

M.Tamizh Selvam .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in respect of the F.I.R in Cr.No.224 of 2022 now pending investigation on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Ashok Kumar

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1

¶15

: Mr.A.Thirumaran for R2

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

1/5

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.8967 of 2023

¶20

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.224 of 2022, pending on the file of the first respondent.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

The affidavit dated 09.02.2022 of the second respondent / de-facto

¶24

complainant and the joint memo of compromise entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent / de-facto complainant have been filed before this Court. The petitioner and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court. In order to identify the respective parties, they have also produced the copies of the Aadhaar Cards and the Aadhaar Cards are made part of the record. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner and the second respondent had entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in Crime No.224 of 2022. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶25

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

¶26

2/5

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.8967 of 2023

¶28

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 Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10 , this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.224 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent Police.

¶29

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the

¶30

proceedings in Crime No.224 of 2022, on the file of the first 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.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as costs, to the credit of the President, Tamil Nadu

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

3/5

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.8967 of 2023

¶35

within a period of one week from today and file a photocopy of the receipt

¶36

along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry.

¶37

13.07.2023

¶38

Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : yes/no grs

¶39

¶40

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶41

The Inspector of Police, [Crime], H-3 Tondiarpet Police Station, Chennai.

¶42

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

¶43

4/5

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.8967 of 2023

¶45

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶46

grs

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.8967 of 2023

¶48

13.07.2023

¶49

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

¶50

5/5

M.Srinivasan v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Srinivasan 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

K.Vasudevan Vs the State Rep.by Its

M. Parish Vs State Rep.by Its the Inspector of Police

R.Subramani Vs The Superintendent of Police

Vedha @ Dhamodharan Vs Thol.Thirumavalavan

Papia Ghosh Vs State Rep by

Kalimuthu Vs State Rep by