Madras High CourtCRL OP/14920/2012disposed of

Samikannu v. The Station House Officer

2016-01-25Honourable Mr Justice R.Subbiah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.01.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Crl.O.P.No.14920 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 1.Samikannu 2.Durailingam 3.Thirugnanam 4.H.M.Halimulla ... Petitioners Vs

1. The Station House Officer, DCB, Cuddalore Police Station.

2. R.Janakiraman ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for records pertaining to FIR No.12 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.N.Suresh For respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R.1 Mr.G.Pugazhenthi for R.2

ORDER

The present criminal original petition has been filed to call for records pertaining to FIR No.12 of 2012 pending on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

2. On the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent with the first respondent police, a case has been registered in Crime No.12 of 2012 as against the petitioners for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 463, 665, 468, 471, 420, 506(i) and 120 I.P.C. To quash the said complaint, the present criminal original petition has been filed.

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

parties was amicably settled. The second respondent / de facto complainant has also filed an affidavit to that effect. In the affidavit, the second respondent has stated that he has no objection to quash the first information report in Crime No.12 of 2012 pending on the file of the first respondent police, since the dispute between them is settled out of Court in respect of all issues.

4. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the pendency of the present criminal original petition, charge sheet has been filed in Crime No.12 of 2012 before the concerned Court. However, it is yet to be taken on file.

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

6. 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.12 of 2012 pending on the file of the first respondent police is liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed in respect of the petitioner.

Further, since the FIR is quashed, consequently, the charge sheet filed before the concerned Court in Crime No.62 of 2015, which was not taken on file so far, is also quashed and the criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. sbi s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To

1. The Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Chidambaram.

2. The Station House Officer, DCB, Cuddalore Police Station.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+ 1 cc to Mr.G.Pugazhenthi, Advocate SR 4916 + 1 cc to Mr.N.Suresh, Advocate SR 4449 lrs(co) prk8/2 Crl.O.P.No.14920 of 2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/