Shajahan vs Sahul Hameed
2021 Latest Caselaw 9894 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 9894 Mad
Judgement Date : 19 April, 2021

Madras High Court

Shajahan vs Sahul Hameed on 19 April, 2021

                                                           1

                                   BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 19.04.2021

                                                       CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI

                                             Crl.R.C(MD)No.147 of 2021
                     1.Shajahan
                     2.Rejina
                     3.Rani                                    : Revision Petitioners/
                                                                 Appellants/A1 to A3

                                                                 Vs.

                     Sahul Hameed                          : Respondent/Respondent/
                                                             Complainant

                                   Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under
                     Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the
                     judgement, dated 05.03.2020 made in Criminal Appeal No.14 of
                     2019 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast
                     Track Court), Kumbakonam, confirming the judgment of the Judicial
                     Magistrate No.2, Kumbakonam, dated 20.12.2018 made in C.C No.
                     257 of 2011.



                                    For Revision Petitioners     : Mr.K.Guhan

                                    For Respondent              : Mr.K.Esakki




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                          2

                                                  JUDGMENT

This criminal revision is directed against the judgement,

dated 05.03.2020 made in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2019 on the

file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track

Court), Kumbakonam, confirming the judgment of the Judicial

Magistrate No.2, Kumbakonam, dated 20.12.2018 made in C.C No.

257 of 2011.

2.The complainant lodged a complaint against the revision

petitioners/A1 to A3 stating that he gave a sum of Rs.50,000/- to

them, on 22.12.2007 at the house of his father-in-law Ismath Batch

and on the same day itself, A1 gave Visa, dated 16.12.2007 for

going to Yeman and later, he came to know that it was a fake Visa

and therefore, he demanded the revision petitioners/A1 to A3 to

return the sum of Rs.50,000/- as well as the passport. However they

did not return the money as well as the passport. Hence, the case.

3.The trial court, by judgment, dated 20.12.2018 made in

CC No.257 of 2011 convicted A1 to A3 for the offence under section

420 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for

6 months each and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, and in default

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

in payment of fine, sentenced them to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of 2 months. The First Appellate Court

also confirmed the findings of the trial court. Aggrieved by the

concurrent findings of the Courts below, the revision petitioners/A1

to A3 are before this court.

4.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

revision petitioners/A1 to A3 that now, the dispute between the

parties has been settled amicably. The learned counsel appearing

for the respondent has not disputed the above fact.

5.When the matter is taken up for hearing on 16.04.2021,

both the parties are present along with their respective counsel and

a Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 20.04.2021 filed stating that

the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably.

6.The Joint Compromise Memo, dated 20.03.2021 reads

as follows:-

“(2)It is humbly submitted that the

above said case has been instituted by the

respondent. Now the petitioners and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

respondent have entered compromise

between them in this regard, the respondent

has no objection to allow the above criminal

revision. Hence, this Hon'ble Court may

record the compromise memo and allow the

criminal revision in favour of the petitioners.

(3)It is humbly submitted that the

compromise were entered between the

relative of the petitioners and the respondent

on 13.02.2021 and the same was reduced in

writing in the Form Compromise Agreement.

As per the compromise agreement, the

respondent has received a full settlement for a

sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and also received

Passport [Passport No.E.2732547]. The

respondent further stated he has no objection

to allow the criminal revision case in favour of

the petitioners.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

7.Since the matter has been amicably settled between the

parties and a Joint Compromise Memo has also been filed to that

effect, no fruitful purpose will be achieved to proceed further in this

matter.