Allowed

Vinod Kumar, Age 39 Yrs, v. R.Revathy

Madras HC17 Nov 2023CRL RC/1038/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court, acknowledging a mediation settlement between the parties, quashed the criminal revision case, the original petition, and connected proceedings. The order directed the trial court to recall a warrant and permitted the complainant to withdraw her complaint as per the settlement terms.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 09.08.2018 and proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.2906 of 2020 were quashed; warrant recalled; complainant permitted to withdraw complaint.

Vinod Kumar, Age 39 Yrs, Vs R.Revathy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2018 & Crl.O.P.No.2983 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2018 & Crl.O.P.No.2983 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1978 & 1679 of 2021

¶7

Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2018:-

¶8

Vinod Kumar

¶9

Rajendran

¶10

Chitra ... Petitioners

¶11

Vs.

¶12

R.Revathy ... Respondent

¶13

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the order dated 09.08.2018 in Criminal Revision Case in Criminal appeal No.9 of 2018 of the learned Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal, confirming the order dated 18.01.2018 in MC.No.15 of 2015 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy and set aside the same and allow the criminal revision case as prayed for.

¶14

For Petitioners For P1 : Mr.M.Sivavarthanan For P1 & P2 : Ms.SA.Kanmani For Respondent : Mr.N.Manoharan

¶15

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

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2018 & Crl.O.P.No.2983 of 2021

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.2983 of 2021 :- 1. V.Rajendran 2. Chitra ... Petitioners

¶19

Vs.

¶20

R.Revathy 2. Minor Deepthi Vinoth ... Respondents

¶21

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.2906 of 2020 in M.C.No.15 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi and quash the proceeding in Crl.M.P.No.2906 of 2020 in M.C.No.15 of 2015 as against the petitioners.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Sivavarthanan For Respondents : Mr.N.Manoharan

¶23

COMMON ORDER

¶24

These petitions have been filed to set aside the order dated

¶25

09.08.2018 made in Criminal appeal No.9 of 2018 of the learned Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal, confirming the order dated 18.01.2018 in MC.No.15 of 2015 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, and to quash the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.2906 of 2020 in M.C.No.15 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy.

¶26

On perusal of records revealed that on the request made by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 6

¶27

Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2018 & Crl.O.P.No.2983 of 2021

¶28

the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court by an order dated

¶29

20.07.2023, referred the matter before the Mediation Centre attached to this Court. In mediation, the parties are amicably settle the issue between them and arrived at an agreement dated 08.09.2023.

¶30

Today, the parties are present before this Court and they deposed that as per the terms and conditions of the mediation agreement arrived between the parties, the case in S.T.C.No.1227 of 2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, has to be withdrawn by the wife.

¶31

In view of the settlement arrived between the parties, the first petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2018, is directed to file petition to recall the warrant before the trial Court in S.T.C.No.1227 of 2022. On receipt of the same, the trial Court is directed to recall the warrant on the same day and the defacto complainant/wife may be permitted to withdraw the complaint.

¶32

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

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2018 & Crl.O.P.No.2983 of 2021

¶35

Accordingly, the order dated 09.08.2018 made in Criminal

¶36

appeal No.9 of 2018 of the learned Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal, confirming the order dated 18.01.2018 in M.C.No.15 of 2015 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, and the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.2906 of 2020 in M.C.No.15 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, are hereby quashed. The Settlement Agreement dated 08.09.2023, shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶37

In result, both the Criminal Revision Case and Criminal

¶38

Original Petition stand allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶39

17.11.2023

¶40

Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order

¶41

rts

¶42

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

¶43

Page 4 of 6

¶44

Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2018 & Crl.O.P.No.2983 of 2021

¶45

¶46

The Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal.

¶47

The Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy.

¶48

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

¶49

Page 5 of 6

¶50

Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2018 & Crl.O.P.No.2983 of 2021

¶51

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

¶52

rts

¶53

Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2018 & Crl.O.P.No.2983 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1978 & 1679 of 2021

¶54

17.11.2023

¶55

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

¶56

Page 6 of 6

Vinod Kumar, Age 39 Yrs, v. R.Revathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar, Age 39 Yrs, v. R.Revathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Muruganandham, M/a 54 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

Suresh Kumar, Aged 40 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Mani, M/a 29 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

M/s The South Indian Bank, Vs The Sate of Tamil Nadu

Ramar Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Sudhir Khanna Vs State Rep by