The court allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of an FIR. A compromise was reached between the parties post-investigation. Relying on Supreme Court guidelines, the court quashed the FIR and ordered the petitioner to pay costs.
Proceedings in Crime No. 259 of 2022 pending on the file of the first respondent are quashed.
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.
Crl.O.P No.9620 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P No.9620 of 2023
Sathishkumar, M/44 S/o.Mummorrth
... Petitioner
vs.
1.State rep.by The Inspector of Police Mahalingapuram Police Station Coimbatore District. (Crime No.259 of 2022)
...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Sakthivel S/o.Natarajan ..2nd Respondent/De facto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Crime No.259 of 2022, on the file of 1st respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor [R1]
1/6
Crl.O.P No.9620 of 2023
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in
Crime No.259 of 2022, pending on the file of first respondent.
2/6
Crl.O.P No.9620 of 2023
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 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 FIR in Crime No.259 of 2022 pending on the file of first respondent.
5.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.259 of 2022 pending on the file of first respondent is quashed and the terms of affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as costs, to the credit of the President, Tamil Nadu Advocates Clerk Association, Madras 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 copy of this order and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry.
3/6
Crl.O.P No.9620 of 2023
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the course
of investigation, certain articles belonging to the petitioner and the de facto complainant were seized by the respondent police and it was produced before the Court. This Court has quashed the FIR and hence, it is left open to both the petitioner as well as the de facto complainant to file a memo before the concerned Court seeking for the return of articles and the concerned Court shall enter the memo and return back whatever articles has been seized and produced before the Court.
7.Post this case for reporting compliance on 23.8.2023.
04.08.2023
Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral citation : Yes/No KP
Note: Issue order copy on 11.8.2023
4/6
Crl.O.P No.9620 of 2023
To
5/6
Crl.O.P No.9620 of 2023
N. ANAND VENKATESH., J KP
Crl.O.P No.9620 of 2023 for reporting compliance on 23.8.2023
04.08.2023
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR proceedings should be quashed in view of a compromise agreement despite the offence being non-compoundable in nature.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbathbhai Ahir v. State of GujarathRelied on¶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 AnotherRelied on¶29
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sathishkumar, M/44 S/o.Mummorrth
State rep.by The Inspector of Police Mahalingapuram Police Station Coimbatore District
Sakthivel S/o.Natarajan
N. ANAND VENKATESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
