Quashed¶14

Si of Police Pernambut v. Dhineshkumar

Madras HC8 Sept 2025SUO MOTU TR/14008/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suo Motu TR quashing; Section 482 CrPC; quashing of criminal case on compromise; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; IPC Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 506(ii), 352; Cr.No.404 of 2017; C.C.No.289 of 2018; Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore; Dedicated Bench; hybrid hearings; affidavits/terms of compromise dispensed with; Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

C.C.No.289 of 2018 (Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore) quashed under Section 482 CrPC on compromise; Suo Motu Transfer Case disposed of; Trial Court directed to take note, classify the case appropriately, consider applications such as disposal of properties, and dispatch copies of the order to all concerned. ¶14

Si of Police Pernambut Vs Dhineshkumar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal case in C.C.No.289 of 2018 (arising from Cr.No.404 of 2017 for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and 352 IPC) should be quashed in exercise of the Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the parties having compromised.

¶9

Court's answer

Having regard to the factual matrix, the context of the conflict, the background of the parties and their present position, and the parties having no objection to disposal on compromise, this is an appropriate case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as per Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The case in C.C.No.289 of 2018 of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudiyatham, stands quashed, and the Suo Motu Transfer Case is disposed of.

¶14

Key takeaways

Because of the Dedicated Bench's hybrid-hearing mode, filing of written affidavits or terms of compromise was dispensed with in this matter.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.), disposing of Suo Motu TR.No.14008 of 2025 (taken up by the Dedicated Bench pursuant to Suo Motu W.P.(Crl.) No.618 of 2025): the case in C.C.No.289 of 2018 of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudiyatham, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore — arising from Cr.No.404 of 2017 for alleged offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and 352 IPC — was quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, following Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, as the parties had moved on and had no objection to disposal on compromise. Written affidavits or terms of compromise were dispensed with owing to the Dedicated Bench's hybrid-hearing mode. The Trial Court was directed to take note of the order, classify the case as allowed/dismissed/disposed of as appropriate, consider applications such as disposal of properties, and dispatch copies of the order to all concerned.

¶1

Suo Motu TR.No.14008 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.09.2025

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶5

Suo Motu TR.No.14008 of 2025 (C.C.No.289 of 2018 of Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudiyatham, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore)

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶7

ORDER

¶8

This Suo Motu Case is dealt with in an extraordinary manner by the Dedicated Bench, pursuant to Suo Motu W.P.(Crl.) No.618 of 2025.

¶9

This case, Cr.No.404 of 2017 is registered for alleged offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and 352 of the Indian Penal Code. The parties have moved on and have no objection to the case being disposed of on compromise. Due to the unique manner in which this dedicated bench conducts hybrid hearings, the filing of written affidavits or terms of compromise is dispensed with. Considering the factual matrix, the context in which the conflict arose, the background of the parties, and their present position, this is an appropriate case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. , [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ].

¶10

Page No.1 of 2

¶11

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

¶12

Suo Motu TR.No.14008 of 2025 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶13

grs

¶14

Accordingly, the case in C.C.No.289 of 2018 of Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudiyatham, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore, stands quashed. This Suo Motu Transfer Case is disposed of.

¶15

08.09.2025

¶16

grs

¶17

Note to the Trial Court: This order is digitally signed and communicated electronically alone. The Trial Court shall take note of the order and accordingly classify the case pending before them as allowed / dismissed / disposed of, etc, and while doing so, consider any applications such as disposal of properties, etc., and pass appropriate orders, as may be necessary. Further, the Court below is directed to dispatch the copy of this order to all concerned.

¶18

Suo Motu TR.No.14008 of 2025

¶19

Page No.2 of 2

¶20

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

Si of Police Pernambut v. Dhineshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Si of Police Pernambut v. Dhineshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police

S.I of Police, Konganapuram Ps Vs Ramasamy

Sub Inspector of Police Vs Balamurugan and 3 others

Inspector of police, K.N.Palayam Vs Rajamani

Si of Police Vs Dinesh

Vennila Vs Dhanasundhari