Madras High Court
T.Sekar : Revision vs S.Rajasekaran on 6 September, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 06.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
Crl.RC(MD)No.211 of 2021
T.Sekar : Revision Petitioner/Appellant/
Accused
Vs.
S.Rajasekaran : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401
of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the conviction and
sentence, dated 05.07.2018 in STC No.572 of 2014 on the file of the
Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai, confirming the judgment, dated
02.02.2021 made in Crl.A No.76 of 2018 on the file of the IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manoharan
For Respondent : Mr.T.Seeni Syed Amma
for Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction
and sentence, dated 05.07.2018 made in STC No.572 of 2014 on
the file of the Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai, confirming the
judgment, dated 02.02.2021 made in Crl.A No.76 of 2018 on the file
of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2.The short facts of the case is that the petitioner/accused
has approached the respondent/complainant and asked for a loan of
Rs.5,00,000/- to meet out his emergency expenses and assured to
repay the said amount together interest within one month and at
that time of borrowing the said amount, the petitioner/accused gave
a post-dated cheque for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Indian
Overseas Bank, Visalakshipuram Branch, Madurai, dated
04.07.2014 and when the cheque was presented for collection, it
was dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient” and thereafter,
the respondent/complainant issued a notice, dated 02.08.2014
calling upon the petitioner/accused to pay the cheque amount,
which was received by the petitioner/accused, on 04.08.20214, but
there is no response. Hence, the case.
3.The trial court, after proper appreciation of the entire
materials available on record, found the petitioner/accused guilty
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced
him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and directed to
pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment of
the trial court, the accused preferred appeal before the First
Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also confirmed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
findings of the trial court. Against which, the petitioner/accused is
before this court.
4.When the matter is taken up for hearing on 03.09.2021,
the petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant 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/complainant has no objection to set aside the entire
proceedings. A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 25.08.2021 has
been filed by the parties to that effect. The Joint Compromise
Memo, dated 25.08.2021 would run thus:-
“The matter in this above case has
been amicably settled between both the
parties. The respondent/complainant has
received Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
only) from the revision petitioner/accused
and in the above criminal revision, the same
may be recorded and the accused may be
acquitted in the above case.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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/accused be acquitted of the
charge convicted against him and the compensation imposed by the
courts below 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 25.08.2021 shall form part of the order.
Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
06.09.2021
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 No.1,
FTC at M.L., Madurai.
2.The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Madurai.
Crl.RC(MD)No.211 of 2021
06.09.2021
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/
