Madras High Court
Murali vs State Rep. By on 13 December, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2017
Murali
... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
(Crime No.7 of 2013)
... Respondent
Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C praying to call
for the records pertaining to the judgment in C.A.No.28 of 2016 dated
16.03.2017 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Krishnagiri confirming the judgment in C.C.No.33 of 2013 dated 14-09-2016
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Hosur, Krishnagiri District
convicting the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC sentencing him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year, imposing a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for three months and convicting the petitioner
under Section 506(i) IPC imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for one month, set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balamurugan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
***
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the
judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri
dated 16.03.2017 passed in C.A.No.28 of 2016 confirming the judgment of
the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Hosur dated 14.09.2016 made in C.C.No.33
of 2013.
2. The de facto complainant is the wife of the first accused and after
marriage they lived together as husband and wife in the house of the first
accused as joint family. The de facto complainant has alleged that the first
accused had married the second accused and ill-treated her.
3. On the complaint given by PW1 (de facto complainant),
PW8/Chithradevi-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2013
under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act. PW8 took up the case for investigation examined
the witnesses, visited the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar
(Ex.P5) and rough sketch (Ex.P6) in the presence of witnesses, arrested the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2017
accused and sent him to remand, completed her investigation and filed the
charge sheet against the accused under Sections, 498(A), 494, 506(i) IPC and
Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. After the
case was taken on file and on being satisfied the materials produced before the
Court, the learned Trial Judge has framed the charges against the accused
under Sections 498(A), 494, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Since the accused pleaded
innocence and claimed to be tried, trial was conducted.
4. On the side of the prosecution, eight witnesses have been examined
as PW1 to PW8 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. No witness
was examined and no document was marked on the side of the defence. At
the conclusion of the trial and on considering the evidences available on
record, the learned Trial Judge had convicted the first accused alone for the
offence under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC and convicted and sentenced
him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of
Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the
offence under Section 498(A) IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to
undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(i)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2017
IPC. The first accused was acquitted from rest of the charges and the second
accused was acquitted from the entire charges. The appeal filed by the first
accused was also dismissed by the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Krishnagiri. Aggrieved over the judgment of the learned Sessions
Judge, the first accused has preferred the present revision.
5. Today when the matter was called, the de facto complainant[PW1]
and the accused were present before this Court and they were identified by
Ms.A.Sudha, Gr-I police, AWPS, Hosur.
6. When the revision case is pending, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner filed a Joint Compromise Memo stating that the de facto
complainant and the first accused have rejoined and they are living together
with their children as one family. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner requested to compound the case, but it is seen that the offence under
Section 498(A) IPC, in which the first accused has been convicted, is non
compoundable. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that
despite the offence being a non compoundable offence, this Court can exercise
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and pass appropriate orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2017
He invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ramgopal and Anr Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in LL 2021 SC 516 in support of his contention that if the criminal
proceedings involved non heinous offence and it is private in nature, the High
Court can exercise its power to compound the matter. In the above said
judgment, it is observed as under:-
“13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings
involving nonheinous offences or where the offences are pre-
dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of
the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands
dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not
the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying
laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes
without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck
post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such
discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances
surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise
has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and
seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused,
before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising
the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be
to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast
line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2017
justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious
justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case,
may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases
where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators,
no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed
by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab &
Ors.3 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).
14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences
which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the
social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters
concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two
individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential
to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences
through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal
to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to
unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can
secure a ‘settlement’ through duress, threats, social boycotts,
bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that “let no
guilty man escape, if it can be avoided.”
15. Given these settled parameters, the order of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh culminating into Criminal Appeal
No. 1489 of 2012, to the extent it holds that the High Court
does not have power to compound a noncompoundable
offence, is in ignorance of its inherent powers under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2017
482 Cr.P.C. and is, thus, unsustainable. However, the
judgment and order dated 9 th January, 2009 of the High
Court of Karnataka, giving rise to Criminal Appeal No. 1488
of 2012 cannot be faulted with on this count for the reason that
the parties did not bring any compromise/settlement to the
notice of the High Court.”
7. The present case has been given by the wife of the first accused and
the allegation is that the first accused had married the second accused while
his first marriage is in subsistence. He had ill treated and driven her out from
the house. Now it seems that the couples have settled the misunderstanding
between themselves and worked out a settlement. It is pertinent to note that
the second accused, whom the first accused is said have got married, was
acquitted on the ground that there was no marriage between the first and
second accused. Now, the de facto complainant, having understood the real
circumstances, had agreed to live with the first accused and it seems that they
are living as one family under one roof along with their children. In fact, this
is exactly a case, which is private in nature and disposing the matter in view of
the compromise entered into between the de facto complainant and the
accused would not cause any harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2017
the society. Though the offence under Section 498(A) IPC is non
compoundable, it is always open to the de facto complainant (wife) to
condone the acts of her husband and opt to live together with him. It seems
that the de facto complainant of this case has also chosen the said option and
presently she is living with him. The pendency of this case can disrupt the
harmony between the couples. Further, taking into consideration of the
reunion between the couples, I feel that this matter can be disposed of as
settled between the parties.
8. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in terms of
compromise.
13.12.2021
Index: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
kmi
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Judicial Magistrate-I,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai-600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2017
R.N.MANJULA, J
kmi
Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2017
13.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
