Dismissed

Kevin v. State Rep.by Its

Madras HC6 Feb 2024CRL OP/7750/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal original petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the C.C.No. 6202 of 2018 was dismissed. The court rejected the quashing prayer because the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of a compromise memo and an undertaking affidavit regarding payment to the defacto complainant.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash C.C.No. 6202 of 2018 dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Kevin Vs State Rep.by Its — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.7750 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.7750 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.4486 of 2022

Kevin

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.State rep. By The Inspector of Police CCB, EDF II, Team-IXA, Vepery, Chennai. Crime No.363 of 2016

¶11

2.Newman ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in C.C.No.6202 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, CCB- CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8 and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saranath For R1 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the C.C.No.6202 of

¶16

2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, CCB- CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8.

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.7750 of 2022

¶19

The learned counsel for the defacto complainant / R2 submitted that

¶20

as per the terms of Compromise memo and as well as the undertaking affidavit given before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal)No.7660 – 7661 of 2023, due to Civil proceedings, the petitioner has not complied the terms as agreed.

¶21

By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had entered into compromise to hand over 20 % of the total compromise amount i.e., Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs only) on or before 30.08.2023 to the defacto complainant. To that effect undertaking affidavit also submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

¶22

On a perusal of the records, it reveals that, the petitioner is not inclined to comply the terms as per compromise. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6202 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, CCB- CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8.

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.7750 of 2022

¶25

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶26

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

06.02.2024

¶28

Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes/No rri

¶29

¶30

1.The Inspector of Police CCB, EDF II, Team-IXA, Vepery, Chennai. Crime No.363 of 2016

¶31

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.7750 of 2022

¶34

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶35

rri

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.7750 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.4486 of 2022

¶37

06.02.2024

¶38

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

Kevin v. State Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kevin v. State Rep.by Its

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

R.Devendhiran Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Selvakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Prasanth Vs Sub Inspector of Police

A.Pasupathy Vs State Rep by

Shaik Mohammed Sadiq Vs State Rep by

Rubi @ Rubi Christy Vs the State Rep by Its