S.Suyambu, M/A-41 Yrs v. The State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.11.2016

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH Crl.O.P. No.24265 of 2016 S.Suyambu

...Petitioner

vs.

1.The State rep by The Inspector of Police P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Chennai 600 118. ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.A.Hariraman ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the FIR registered in Cr.No.1482 of 2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai 600 118 and quash the same. For petitioner :Mr.B.Ganesh Moorthy For R1 :Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the FIR registered in Cr.No.1482 of 2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai 600 118 and quash the same.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.On the complaint lodged by Hariraman, the respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.1482 of 2015 on 18.12.2015 for offences u/s 448, 294(b), 454, 380 and 506(i) IPC against Kannan, Suyambu, Rajesh and Murugesan, challenging which Suyambu is before this Court for quashing the FIR, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled with Hariraman, the de facto complainant.

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

4.The learned counsel for Suyambu submitted that the parties have entered into an agreement titled "settlement agreement" dated 23.02.2016, under which the de facto complainant had agreed to withdraw the complaint in Cr.No.1482 of 2015.

5. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.Ravichandran, Sub Inspector of Police, P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai 600 118, is present before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant is demanding more money for coming to this Court for reporting settlement.

7. Under such circumstances, the respondent police is directed to conduct a thorough enquiry and if it is found that the de facto complainant had amicably settled with the accused and had entered into the agreement dated 23.02.2016, and that the accused had performed their part of the settlement agreement by executing the sale deed, as agreed to by them in the settlement agreement, the FIR in Cr.No.1482 of 2015 may be closed and further action against the accused be dropped. With the above direction, this petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gms To 1.The Inspector of Police, P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai 600 118.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

+1cc to M/S.B.Ganesha Moorthy, Advocate Sr.67644 Crl.O.P. No.24265 of 2016 nr I[co] srg 10/12/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/