Allowed

Basheer Khan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Nov 2023CRL OP(MD)/6631/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench quashed criminal proceedings for cheating filed against petitioners who later entered a joint compromise with the complainant. The single-judge bench allowed the Criminal Original Petition and quashed the proceedings in Crime No.200 of 2018 by recording the settlement.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in Crime No.200 of 2018 pending on the file of the respondent police is quashed in respect of the petitioners.

Basheer Khan Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6631 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6631 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.4441 of 2019

¶7

Basheer Khan

¶8

Thowlath Banu

¶9

Abdul Rahman

¶10

Shajahan 5. Fathima Gani ... Petitioners

¶11

Vs.

¶12

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi Police Station, Sivagangai District. (In Crime No.200 of 2018)

¶13

Shahul Hammed ... Respondents

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

PRAYER:

¶17

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6631 of 2019

¶18

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records of the case in Crime No.200 of 2018 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.200 of 2018 on the file of the 1^st respondent police.

¶23

2.The petitioners said to have committed offence under Section

¶24

420 of IPC in Crime No.200 of 2018. Pending the investigation, the petitioner filed this quash petition.

¶25

During the pendency of this quash petition, the petitioner would

¶26

submit that the petitioners and the defacto complainant amicably settled the issues between them and a joint memo of compromise was filed,

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6631 of 2019

¶30

which has been duly signed by the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent and also by their respective counsels. The material contents of the joint compromise memo is as follows:

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6631 of 2019

¶34

4.To verify the same, this Court asked the parties to appear before this Court. The petitioners and the 2^nd respondent appeared before this Court along with their respective counsels. They are also identified by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) and the Investigation Officer. Both the parties were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence, the Compromise Memo is recorded.

¶35

The defacto complainant preferred the complaint before the respondent police alleging that the petitioners are his brother-in-laws. After the demise of his father-in-law, in the year 2004, the petitioners are obtained the legal heirs certificate without including his wife namely the elder sister of the petitioners and sold the land of the deceased/father -in-law. Therefore, the petitioners cheated the defacto complainant. Now, they have entered compromise and he received the amount. Therefore, they come forward with the quashment of this FIR.

¶36

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners and also in view of the joint

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6631 of 2019

¶40

compromise memo, dated 04.08.2023, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending and inclined to quash all further proceedings in Crime No.200 of 2018 pending on the file of the 1^st respondent police in respect of this petitioners.

¶41

The petitioners' case is come under the guidelines issued by the

¶42

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 5 SCC 688 in the following paragraph No.15.1 and hence, this Court is inclined to accept the compromise and quash the proceedings by exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C:

¶43

“ 15.1.That the power conferred under Section 482of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves”.

¶44

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

¶45

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6631 of 2019

¶46

In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and

¶47

the entire proceedings in Crime No.200 of 2018, pending on the file of the 1^st respondent police is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners. The compromise memo is recorded and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶48

22.11.2023

¶49

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sbn

¶50

¶51

The Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶52

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6631 of 2019

¶56

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶57

sbn

¶58

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6631 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.4441 of 2019

¶59

22.11.2023

¶60

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

Basheer Khan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basheer Khan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nrsk Pandiyan Natraj Perumal Vs K.Essakidurai

Suriyakumar @ Suryakumar Vs The Inspector of Police

R. Saravanan Vs The Commissioner of Police

Muthuraj Vs Lakshmi

Kumaravel Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Jerald Selvanathan Vs G.Shobia