1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 13.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
Crl.RC(MD)No.412 of 2020
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.3614 of 2020
K.M.Murugesan : Revision Petitioner/Appellant/
Accused
Vs.
Mr.P.Babu : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401
of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records connected
with C.A No.74 of 2015 on the file of the Mahalir Neethi Mandram
(Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur, dated 16.03.2016 in C.C No.592
of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court at
Magisterial Level), Karur, dated 16.10.2015 and set aside the
judgment passed in CC No.592 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karur, dated
16.10.2015, subsequently, in C.A No.74 of 2015 on the file of the
Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur, dated
16.03.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondent : Mr.S.I.Muthiah
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
JUDGMENT
This criminal revision is directed against the judgment passed in CC No.592 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karur, dated 16.10.2015, subsequently confirmed in C.A No.74 of 2015 on the file of the Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur, dated 16.03.2016.
2.The short facts of the case is that the accused has approached the complainant and asked for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to meet his urgent family expenses, which was advanced by the complainant on 04.02.2013 and for that, the accused issued a post- dated cheque for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Karur Branch, dated 04.07.2014 and when the cheque was presented for collection, it was dishonoured for the reason “Insufficient Funds” and thereafter, the complainant issued a notice dated 25.07.2014 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount, which was received by the accused, but there is no response. Hence, the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3
3.The trial court, after proper appreciation of the entire materials available on record, found the accused guilty under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 months with a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default to undergo 15 days Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the accused preferred appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the sentence to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment. Against which, the petitioner/accused is before this court.
4.When the matter is taken up for hearing on 12.07.2021, the petitioner and the respondent along with their respective counsel appeared through Video Call. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on either side that now the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably and the respondent has no objection to set aside the entire proceedings. A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 09.11.2020 has been filed by the parties to that effect. The Joint Compromise Memo, dated 09.11.2020 would run thus:-
“7.It is submitted that the revision https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4 petitioner/appellant/accused is practicing as an advocate in Karur District and he is a retired Thasildar. It is submitted that the case of the revision petitioner/appellant/accused was that earlier some misunderstanding between the revision petitioner/appellant/accused and the respondent/respondent/complainant. The senior advocates of Bar association advised the revision petitioner/appellant/accused and the respondent/respondent/complainant for settle the dispute in amicable manner, after which both settled the issue, now all the disputes and money transactions have been amicably settled. Now the respondent/respondent/complainant did not want to proceed the case further against the revision petitioner/appellant/accused and to that effect the respondent/respondent/complainant and the revision petitioner/appellant/accused are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5 submitting this joint compromise memo before this Hon'ble Court.
8.It is submitted that now the revision petitioner/appellant/accused and the respondent/respondent/complainant maintaining good relationship with understanding and respect. It is submitted that since the revision petitioner/appellant/accused has repaid the amount back to the respondent/respondent/complainant and both the parties have respectfully come forward to submit this compromise memo before this Hon'ble Court.”
5.Keeping in view of the above fact, since offence under Section 138 of the Act can be compoundable at any stage of the proceedings and now, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, the parties are allowed to compound the offence and the revision petitioner be acquitted of the charge(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6 convicted against him and the fine imposed by the trial court is set aside.
6.The criminal revision is accordingly disposed of in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties. The Joint Compromise Memo, dated 09.11.2020 shall form part of the order. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
13.07.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7 T.KRISHNAVALLI, J er To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karur.
2.The Mahalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur.
Crl.RC(MD)No.412 of 2020 13.07.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8 Crl.RC(MD)No.434 of 2008 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J ADVANCE ORDER In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The punishment imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 365 IPC is reduced into 6 months RI. In other aspects, the findings of the trial court is confirmed. The period of sentence, if any already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The appellant, after adjusting the period of imprisonment already undergone shall undergo imprisonment for the remaining period. The appellant may be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
18.06.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/