Madras High Court
K.M.Murugesan : Revision vs Mr.P.Babu on 13 July, 2021
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.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/
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/
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/
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/
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/
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/
