Allowed

K.Arun Kumar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC14 Jun 2023CRL OP(MD)/7075/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR for offences under IPC Sections 279 and 337. The Court recorded a joint compromise memo and the final payment, quashing all pending proceedings against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No. 215 of 2019 pending with the Police are quashed and the compromise memo is recorded.

K.Arun Kumar Vs The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7075 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.06.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7075 of 2023

¶7

K.Arun Kumar ... Petitioner / Accused rank not known

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station, Madurai District. Crime No. 215/2019. ...1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶10

Vijaya ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pursuant to the proceedings of FIR in Crime No. 215 of 2019 on the file of the 1^st respondent Police and to quash the same as against the petitioner.

¶12

For petitioner : Mr. Surliraja.P For R1 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Government Advocate(Crl.side) For R2 : Mr.M.Jeeva

¶13

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

¶14

1/5

¶15

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7075 of 2023

¶16

O RDER

¶17

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.215 of 2019 dated 12.06.2019 the file of the 1^st respondent police.

¶18

2.The contention of the petitioner is that based on the complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No.215 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC against the petitioner.

¶19

3.The further contention of the petitioner is that they compromised the issue with the 2^nd respondent amicably. A joint memo of compromise was filed, which has been duly signed by the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent and also by their respective counsels.

¶20

The compromise was reached between the parties, by which, the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the defacto complainant. In the above said Rs.50,000/-, Rs.30,000/- was paid on 20.04.2023 before this Court. For payment of the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- the matter is listed today. Voucher has been produced by the petitioner, which is also

¶21

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

¶22

2/5

¶23

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7075 of 2023

¶24

admitted by both side counsels that the balance amount of Rs.20,000/was paid to the defacto complainant on 13.06.2023.

¶25

The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent appeared before this Court along with their counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards. They were also identified by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Investigation Officer. Both the parties were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence, the Compromise Memo is recorded.

¶26

6.Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also in view of the joint compromise memo, dated 13.06.2023, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending. Hence, all further proceedings in Crime No.215 of 2019 pending on the file of the

¶27

1^st respondent police is quashed and the compromise memo is recorded.

¶28

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

¶29

3/5

¶30

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7075 of 2023

¶31

In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and

¶32

the entire proceedings in Crime No.215 of 2019, pending on the file of the 1^st respondent police is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order.

¶33

14.06.2023

¶34

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

¶35

Indu

¶36

¶37

The Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station, Madurai District.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

4/5

¶41

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7075 of 2023

¶42

G.ILANGOVAN. J.

¶43

Indu

¶44

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7075 of 2023

¶45

14.06.2023

¶46

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

¶47

5/5

K.Arun Kumar v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Arun Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jhansirani @ Jhansi Mary Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

M.Kannappa Vs The Superintendent of Police

N.Chiraimeettan Vs The Superintendent of Police

Veerapandiyan Vs The Superintendent of Police

Mohamed Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Usha Vijayakumar Vs The Sub Inspector of Police