← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/2264/2019closed

K.Arumugam v. The State Rep By Its,

2022-04-20Honourable Mr Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.04.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Crl.O.P.No.2264 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.1477 of 2019 1.K.Arumugam 2.Loga Arumugham 3.Ramesh 4.Nalini

...Petitioners

Versus

1.State by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.

(Cr.No.7 of 2018) 2.Lakshmi Sri

...Respondents

Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for all the records in Crime No.7 of 2018 dated 19.12.2018 on the file of All Women Police Station, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Maniprabhu For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Ms.R.Suganya

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.7 of 2018 dated 19.12.2018 on the file of the first Respondent Police.

2. When the case came up for hearing on 19.04.2022, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that during the pendency of this case, the defacto complainant and the accused had amicably settled the issues. The learned Counsel for the second Respondent/defacto complainant present in Court, but, she https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

had not filed Vakalath. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 20.04.2022 for recording of the Vakalath of the defacto complainant. As the affidavit of the second respondent/defacto complainant was filed without Vakalath, the affidavit cannot be recorded. Accordingly, the case was adjourned.

3. Today (i.e., 20.04.2022), when the case is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/defacto complainant present and Vakalath had been filed by the counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant, namely M/s.S.Vigneswari and R.Suganya. The affidavit of the second respondent/defacto complainant also taken on file and it is recorded. What had been stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner had been stated in the affidavit. On oral query of this Court, the second respondent/defacto complainant present in the Court admitted the same. To prove the identity, ID proof of the second respondent/defacto complainant was sought by this Court. She had also produced her Driving Licence and Voter ID.

4. Based on the affidavit filed by the second Respondent/defacto complainant, further proceedings in this Criminal Original Petition is closed. Consequently, connected Criminal Original Petition is also closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar sp To 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

Crl.O.P.No.2264 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.1477 of 2019 EV(CO) RVM(05/05/2022) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/