Madras High Court
P.Velmurugan. vs Sri Meenakshi Sundaram Textiles on 26 August, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.431 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.8422 of 2021
P.VELMURUGAN.,J
Even though the matter is not listed today, at the instance of the learned
counsel for the respondent, the matter is taken up upon being mentioned.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent brought to our attention that in
Para-6 of the order dated 26.08.2021 in the fourth line from the bottom,
instead of the word “respondent” it has been inadvertently typed as
“petitioner” and requests necessary correction to be made in the said order.
3. A perusal of Para-6 reveals that an inadvertent typographical error has
crept in, which requires correction. Accordingly, the word “petitioner”
appearing in the fourth line from the bottom in Para-6 of the order dated
26.08.2021 shall stand corrected as “ respondent “.
4. Registry is directed to make the necessary correction and issue fresh
copy of the order to the parties.
13.09.2021
mfa
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
P.VELMURUGAN.,J
mfa
Crl.R.C.No.431 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.8422 of 2021
13.09.2021
2/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :26.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
CRL.R.C.No.431 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.8422 of 2021
V.Sadagopan
Proprietor,
M/s.Sivanand Tex.
No.4, T.v.Nagar North,
Sirupooluvapatti Post,
Tirupur. ... Petitioner
Versus
Sri Meenakshi Sundaram Textiles,
Rep. By its Proprietor,
Mr.M.Thiyagarajan,
Rep. By his Power of Attorney Holder
Mr.T.Meenakshisundaram
S/o, Mr.M.Thiyagarajan
Door No.13, T.S.Puram,
Oothukuli road,
Tirupur. ... Respondent
3/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
PRAYER:
Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the order and
judgment dated 11.01.2019 in C.A.No.49 of 2017 passed by the Learned II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur, threby dismissing the appeal and
confirming the order and judgment dated 26.04.2017 in S.T.C.No.3736 of 2008
passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Diwakar
for Mr.R.Baskar
For Respondent : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to call for the records and set
aside the order and judgment dated 11.01.2019 in C.A.No.49 of 2017 passed by the
learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur, confirming the order and
judgment dated 26.04.2017 in S.T.C.No.3736 of 2008 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur.
2. The petitioner is the accused and the Respondent is the complainant.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3. The respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the
petitioner/accused under 200 Cr.P.C, for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur in
S.T.C.No.3736 of 2008. The learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty for the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted him and
sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of
Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and also
directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,39,935/- as compensation. Challenging the same,
the petitioner filed an appeal before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tirupur in Crl.A.No.49 of 2017. The II Additional District Sessions Judge after
hearing the arguments advanced on either side, dismissed the appeal and confirmed
the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate. Challenging the judgment of
the appellate court, the petitioner has come before this Court by way of this
Revision and the petitioner has filed a miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P.No.8422
of 2021 for compounding the offence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he had paid the
entire compensation amount to the respondent/complainant and therefore, he filed
the petition for compounding the offence.
http://www.judis.nic.in
5. When the matter came up for hearing on 11.08.2021, this Court directed
the petitioner to deposit 15% of the cheque amount before the Registry as costs as
per the guidelines laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of
Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H, dated 3rd May 2010. If the offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is sought to be compounded, when
the matter is pending before the High Court, 15% of the cheque amount has to be
paid by way of costs. Therefore, this Court has directed the petitioner to pay the
said amount. The petitioner has filed a memo stating that he has remitted a sum of
Rs.1,70,990/- before the Registry. The abovesaid memo is taken on record.
6. Since the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a
compoundable offence and the matter is settled between the parties, the
miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P.No.8422 of 2021 is allowed. In view of the same,
the revision is allowed and the conviction order passed by the Judicial Magistrate is
setaside. While suspending sentence, this Court had directed the petitioner to
deposit 50% of the cheque amount on the file of the the Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Tirupur, in S.T.C.No.3736 of 2008. Now the matter is settled and the said 50%
compensation is deposited in an interest bearing account, the Judicial Magistrate
shall permit the petitioner to withdraw the deposited amount, including interest.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P.No.8422 of 2021 is also allowed.
26.08.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
mfa
http://www.judis.nic.in
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
mfa
To
1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
II Additional District and Sessions Court,
Tirupur,
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Judicial Magistrate No.I Court,
Tirupur.
CRL.R.C.No.431 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.8422 of 2021
26.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
