Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/17356/2021allowed

Shanthi v. The Inspector Of Police

2022-01-31Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan2 pages

Crl.O.P(MD)No.17356 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31.01.2022 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.O.P(MD)No.17356 of 2021 1.Shanthi 2.Rajendran 3.Kannadhasan 4.Ganesan 5.Murugan @ Durai Murugan 6.Thangarasu 7.Savithiri 8.Sakthi 9.Periyasamy 10.Ramasamy 11.Seevalan Sathan 12.Valli 13.Vijaya ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5,7,9 to 15 Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, K.Pudupatti Police Station, Pudukkottai.

(Crime No.93 of 2014) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Murugan ... 2nd Respondents / Defacto complainant Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and to quash all further proceedings in pursuant to the impugned FIR in Crime No.93 of 2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, K.Pudupatti Police Station, Pudukkottai District insofar as the petitioners are concerned. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1.

Mr.K.Nagendra Prasad for R2.

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.O.P(MD)No.17356 of 2021 2.The petitioners are shown as accused in Crime No.93 of 2014 on the file K.Pudupatti Police Station. The second respondent is the defacto complainant. The specific allegation of the second respondent is that on account of the conduct of the petitioners, he had suffered damage to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that a demand draft for a sum of Rs.15,000/- will be drawn in the name of the second respondent and the original demand draft will be handed over to the learned counsel for the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The occurrence itself took place way back in the year 2014 and we are now in 2022. When the petitioners have come forward to pay the reparation, in my view, prosecution need not continue. The defacto complainant had not suffered any injury. Therefore, recording the undertaking of the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the defacto complainant, the impugned FIR is quashed and the criminal original petition is allowed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ias Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To:

1.The Inspector of Police, K.Pudupatti Police Station, Pudukkottai.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.K.NAGENDRA PRASAD, Advocate ( SR-3319[F] dated 01/02/2022 ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.17356 of 2021 31.01.2022 na(CO) TR(15.02.2022) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2