Allowed

Gnanakumar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Feb 2023CRL OP(MD)/892/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court quashed an FIR registered against petitioners in a family dispute under sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 354 and 506(2) IPC. The Court allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC noting that parties had compromised amicably, ruling that keeping proceedings pending served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the proceedings in Crime No.241 of 2022 were quashed.

Gnanakumar Vs The Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.892 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.892 of 2023

¶7

Gnanakumar,

¶8

Thekkamalai,

¶9

Vijayalakshmi,

¶10

Balakrishnan,

¶11

Shajahan,

¶12

: Petitioners

¶13

¶14

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatty Police Station, Trichy District (Crime No.241 of 2022).

¶15

Elakkiya,

¶16

: Respondents

¶17

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the case in Crime No.241 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.892 of 2023

¶21

For Petitioners	: Mr.M.Pitchai Muthu
For R1	: Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
	Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2	: Mr.G.Pradeep

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.241 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that due to civil dispute, the accused persons assaulted the defacto complaint and her parents, abused

¶25

them with filthy language and also threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, she lodged a complaint.

¶26

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent and on that basis, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.241 of 2022 dated 18.07.2022 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 354 and 506(2) IPC against the petitioners.

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.892 of 2023

¶30

The case is still under the investigation. By passage of time, the

¶31

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

¶32

A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mrs.R.Vembhu, Grade I Women Constable 383, Vaiyampatti Police Station, Trichy District as well as by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶33

In the instant case, it is a family dispute and now the parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 354 and 506(2) IPC.

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.892 of 2023

¶37

case of

¶38

The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

¶39

case of Gian Singh vs. State of Panjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) reported in (2017)9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.

¶40

In the light of the guidelines issued in the above said Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings in Crime No.241 of 2022 pending before the first respondent police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

¶41

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.241 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶42

13.02.2023

¶43

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

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.892 of 2023

¶47

¶48

The Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatty Police Station, Trichy District

¶49

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

¶50

5/6

¶51

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

¶52

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.892 of 2023

¶53

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

¶54

¶55

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.892 of 2023

¶56

Dated: 13.02.2023

¶57

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

¶58

6/6

Gnanakumar v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gnanakumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.R.Madhusudhanan Vs K.Pounraj

Selvendran Vs The Inspector of Police

Vikki @ Vigneshrajan Vs The Inspector of Police

Prasanna Vs The Inspector of Police

Loganathan Vs The Inspector of Police

Sivakumar Vs The Inspector of Police