SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Prakash @ Jeyaprakash Narayanan – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police – Respondent
CRL OP(MD) 2635/2021



Advocates:
['M/s Susi Kumar C', '', 'Ajaykose C', 'Naresh B', '', 'Joint Compromise memo filed', 'Public Prosecutor', '', 'R Maheswaran', 'R', 'PH']

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2635 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 01.11.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ILANGOVAN

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2635 of 2021

R.Prakash @ Jeyaprakash Narayanan

.. Petitioner/ Accused No.8

Vs

1.State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

Kenikarai Police Station,

Ramanathapuram District.

In crime No.526/1999

..1st Respondent/Complainant

2.Kamatchi

.. 2nd Respondent /

Defacto

Complainant

3.Depakaran

..3rd Respondent/ Victim

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, to call for records relating to the charge sheet in PRC

No.11 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II,

Ramanathapuram and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is

concerned.

For Petitioners

: Mr.C.Susikumar

For R1

: Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi

Government Advocate

For R2 & R3

: R.Maheshwaran

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash charge

sheet in PRC No.11 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate

Court No.II, Ramanathapuram insofar as the petitioner is

concerned. The petitioner is facing charges under Sections 147,

148, 323, 324 and 307 IPC.

2.The second respondent / defacto complainant as well as

the petitioner/accused are present before this Court through video

conference and they are identified by the respective learned

counsel and both the parties have filed joint compromise memo

stating that the matters in issue between them has been amicably

resolved. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the co-

accused has been acquitted after full trial in SC No.32 of 2006,

by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram. The second

respondent / defacto complainant is not willing to prosecute the

case and therefore would pray for quashing the case.

1/2

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

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2635 of 2021

3. The compromise memo is filed before this Court and the

parties are also present at the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor office and their identity has also been verified

through video conference. Since the matters in issue has been

compromised between the parties, no purpose will be served in

keeping the case pending further.

4. In the result, by recording the compromise, this

Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in PRC

No.11 of 2017, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II,

Ramanathapuram is quashed. The joint compromise memo shall form

part and parcel of this order.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar (AD-I)

// True Copy //

/ /2021

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

vrn

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:-

Enclose copy of Joint Compromise Memo.

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II,

Ramanathapuram.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Kenikarai Police Station,

Ramanathapuram District.

In crime No.526/1999

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2635 of 2021

01.11.2021

RK/NS(22/11/2021) 2P 4C

2/2

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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top