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 5, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Arulvalan Arasu @ Arasu vs The State Represented By on 14 December, 2015

Author: S.Vaidyanathan

Bench: S.Vaidyanathan

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 14.12.2015  

CORAM   

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN          
                                                                        
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23636 of 2015 

1.Arulvalan Arasu @ Arasu 

2.Christhuraja @ Raja                                           ... Petitioners

                                        Vs.

1.      The State Represented by 
        The Inspector of Police,
        Karungal Police Station,
        Kanyakumari District.
        Crime No.304/2010  

2.      Santhosh @ Santhoshkumar        ... Respondents

Prayer
       Petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to
call for the records in C.C.No.76 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Eraniel and quash the same.
        
For Petitioner          :       Mr.M.Saravanan
^For R1                 :       Mrs.S.Prabha 
                                Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2                  :       Mr.Bibin Gnanakumar


:ORDER  

The petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered in C.C.No.76 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, pursuant to amicable settlement effected between the parties.

2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.304 of 2010 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 326 and 506(ii) IPC, has been registered against the petitioners / Accused.

3. When the matters is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/Accused and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the parties by the Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent Police.

4. The counsel appearing on either side filed joint compromise memo duly stating that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above case in C.C.No.76 of 2011 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.

5. Considering the nature of allegations and also considering the memo of compromise, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.76 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel in respect of the petitioners / accused alone, is hereby quashed.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The joint compromise memo shall form part of this order.

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. .