J.Rajesh Kumar v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.01.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Crl.O.P.No.1972 of 2016 1.J.Rajesh Kumar 2.P.Bakiyadas 3.J.Immanuel 4.J.Rajesh ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 Vs

1. The Inspector of Police (L & O), E.3 Police Station, Teynampet, Chennai-6.

2. S.Peter ... Respondents/Complainant.

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for records on the file of the Inspector of Police, E.3 Teynampet Police Station, Chennai-6 pertaining to the first information report in Crime No.1180 of 2015 dated 3.4.2015 and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.V.Sudakar For respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for R.1 Mr.R.Parthiban, for R.2

ORDER

The present criminal original petition has been filed to call for records pertaining to the case in Crime No.1180 of 2015 dated 3.4.2015 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, E.3 Teynampet Police Station, Chennai-6 and quash the same.

2. On the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent as against the petitioners with the first respondent police, a case has been registered in Crime No.1180 of 2015 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 354, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C. To quash the said complaint, the present criminal original petition has been filed.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent / de facto complainant represented that the dispute between the parties was amicably settled. The second respondent / de facto complainant has also filed a supporting affidavit stating that he has no objection to quash the first information report in Crime No.1180 of 2015 pending on the file of the first respondent police, for the welfare of the Church and all its members.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the supporting affidavit filed by the second respondent/ de facto complainant.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, I am of the opinion that the first information report in Crime No.1180 of 2015 pending on the file of the first respondent police is liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed in respect of the petitioners and the criminal original petition is allowed.

sbi -s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To

1. The Inspector of Police (L & O), E.3 Police Station, Teynampet, Chennai-6.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+ 2cc to Mr.C.Praksam, Advocate SR 5440, 5441 ctk(co) prk15/2 Crl.O.P.No.1972 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/