Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Anish @ Kattaiyan vs State Rep. By on 4 February, 2016

Author: P.N.Prakash

Bench: P.N.Prakash

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 04.02.2016  

CORAM   
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH         
                                                                        
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1991 of 2016 

Anish @ Kattaiyan               ... Petitioner/Sole Accused
-vs-
1.      State Rep. by
        The Inspector of Police,
        Karungal Police Station,
        Kanyakumari District.           ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 

2.      Rethinasamy     ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant 
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to
call for records in STC No.98 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Eraniel and quash the same. 

!For Petitioner         :       Mr.R.Russel Raj
                        
^For R1                 :       Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran          
                                Addl. Public Prosecutor
For R2          :       Mr.M.Joseph Raj 


:O R D E R 

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in STC No.98 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.

2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.189 of 2013 for the alleged offence under Section 379 IPC, has been registered against the petitioner/sole accused. After completion of the investigation, the 1st respondent has filed a charge sheet, which was duly taken on file in S.T.C. No.98 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner/sole accused and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the Additional Public Prosecutor through the respondent Police, namely, J.Benjamin, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Kanyakumari District (Mobile No.9498195396). Learned counsel appearing for the parties also endorsed the identify of their respective parties.

4. The defacto complainant / 2nd respondent has also filed an affidavit dated 04.02.2016, nodding no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioner based on the settlement arrived at between them, which reads as under:

?1. I am the 2nd Respondent herein and the de-facto complainant in the above said case in S.T.C.No.98 of 2014 (On the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District) and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case.
2. I submit that as per my complaint dated 01.04.2013, the 1st Respondent police registered a case for alleged offences under section 379 of IPC against the petitioner on 01.04.2013 in Crime No.189 of 2013. The above said case has been charge sheeted and taken on file as STC No.98 of 2014.
3. I submit that now we settled the matter amicably in the presence of our well wisher and villagers. Hence, I have no objection to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.98 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this affidavit and quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.98 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari Distrct in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1991 of 2016 and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.?

5. In view of the above affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and also considering the nature of allegation, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.

6. Though it is contended by the accused that the complaint in this case was not lodged by the defacto complainant, without going into the merits of the case, the proceedings in in S.T.C.No.98 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel in respect of the petitioner/accused alone, are hereby quashed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The affidavit of the 2nd respondent dated 04.02.2016 is taken on record.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel

2. The Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

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

.