Madras High Court

CRL OP(MD)/24208/2016 of GNANA SHANMUGAM @ GNANAM Vs THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 29 December 2016

BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.12.2016 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.24208 of 2016 Gnana Shanmugam @ Gnanam .. Petitioners/Accused -Vs- 1.State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Alagappapuram Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... 1st

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 29.12.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.24208 of 2016

Gnana Shanmugam @ Gnanam .. Petitioners/Accused -Vs-

1.State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Alagappapuram Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.... 1[st] Respondent/Complainant2.Sureshkumar @ Suresh ... 2[nd] Respondent/Defacto Complaint Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records andquash the proceedings in Crime No.90/2016 on the file of the firstrespondent herein and quash the same.

O R D E R

This petition has been filedto call for the records andquash the proceedings in Crime No.90/2016 on the file of the firstrespondent herein and quash the same.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and thePublic Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

3. Based on the complaint given by the secondrespondent/defacto complainant, a case has been registered againstthe petitioner in Cr.No.90 of 2016 for offences under Sections 448and 323 of IPC on the file of the first respondent. The saidF.I.R. is challenged before this Court.

4. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, boththe petitioner as well as the second respondent are present beforethis Court and they categorically made a statement that thedispute between them have been settled amicably. They also fileda joint compromise memo dated 28.12.2016 duly signed by bothparties and counter signed by their respective Counsel. Thehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/learned Counsel for the second respondent also has no objectionto quash the proceedings in Cr.No.90 of 2016.

Page 1 of 2

5. In view of the statements made by the parties and thejoint compromise memo filed by them, no fruitful purpose will beachieved to proceed further in this matter.

6. In view of that, the impugned proceedings in Cr.No.90 of2016, on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed andthe Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Thecompromisememo dated 28.12.2016 shall form part of the order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar ()

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

To:

(*)Compromise Memo is annexed to this Order

1. Sub Inspector of Police, Alagappapuram Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.+1 cc to Mr. RM.ARUN SWAMINATHAN, Advocate, Sr.No:83788

Crl.O.P.(MD) NO.24208 of 2016

29.12.2016trpMS/09.01.2017/2P-4C

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead