Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/11245/2018allowed

T.Suresh v. The Inspector Of Police

2019-11-13Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan2 pages

Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 11245 of 2018 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.11.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 11245 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.5102 of 2018 1.T.Suresh 2.T.Meenal 3.A.Muthulakshmi 4.S.Ganesan 5.K.Malar 6.S.Kannan 7.R.Lakshmanadoss : Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7

Versus

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kamudhi, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.03 of 2018) ..Respondent/Complainant 2.D.Ananthammal : Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.03 of 2018, dated 05.05.2018, on the file of the respondent No.1, for the offences under Sections 498 (A) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.I.Pinaygash For R-1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Criminal side) For R-2 : Mr.R.Uthayakumar

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.03 of 2018, dated 05.05.2018, on the file of the first respondent, for the offences under Sections 498 (A) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that based on a complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 11245 of 2018 first respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.03 of 2018, for the offences under Sections 498 (A) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. He would further submit that they have settled the entire issue, since all the disputes are arising out of the family dispute.

3. It is seen that now the first petitioner as well as the second respondent got re-union and they are living together happily. Therefore, the pendency of the First Information Report in Crime No.3 of 2018, did not serve any purpose.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has not raised any serious objections to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.03 of 2018 as against the petitioners herein.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the pendency of the First Information Report against the petitioners would not serve any purpose and therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.03 of 2018, on the file of the first respondent Police, is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar () // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) tsg To 1.The Inspector of Police, Rajakamangalam Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.I. PINAYGASH, Advocate ( SR-97976[F] dated 13/11/2019 ) Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 11245 of 2018 13.11.2019 KM/(27.11.2019) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2