Madras High Court
M.A.Muthuraj vs Sikkindhar Sidhiq on 1 April, 2022
Crl.R.C(MD)No.205 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.205 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.1821 & 1822 of 2020
M.A.Muthuraj ... Petitioner/Appellant/Accused
Vs.
Sikkindhar Sidhiq ... Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction imposed
in the Judgment, dated 09.12.2019 made in C.A.No.80 of 2014 on
the file of the Additional District Court, Srivilliputhur, confirming the
conviction imposed in the Judgment, dated 21.04.2014 made in
S.T.C.No.55 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Rajapalayam.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Niresh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.R.C(MD)No.205 of 2020
ORDER
This revision has been filed to set aside the conviction
imposed in the Judgment, dated 09.12.2019 made in C.A.No.80 of
2014 on the file of the Additional District Court, Srivilliputhur,
confirming the conviction imposed in the Judgment, dated
21.04.2014 made in S.T.C.No.55 of 2012 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam.
2.The learned counsel appearing on either side would submit
that while pending the revision, the parties have amicably settled
their issues in pursuant to the conviction passed by the trial Court
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court. They
have also entered into a joint compromise memo, dated
01.04.2022, which reads as follows:-
“The petitioner has filed the above Criminal
Revision Case challenging the conviction and sentence
imposed on him by the Additional District Court,
Srivilliputhur in Crl.A.No.80 of 2014, by order dated
09.12.2019. Pendind disposal of the above Crl.R.C, the
petitioner and the respondent have entered into
compromise and the petitioner agreed to pay the cheque
amount of Rs.1,62,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards fine,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.205 of 2020
totally Rs.1,64,000/- to the respondent/Complainant.
The respondent herein also agreed to receive the said
amount. Today, the petitioner herein/accused paid Rs.
1,64,000/- by cash to the respondent
herein/complainant and the receipt of the said amount is
herewith acknowledged by the respondent
herein/complainant. This memo is filed acknowledging
the receipt of Rs.1,64,000/-.
It is therefore prayed this Court may be pleased to
pass appropriate order by recording this joint
compromise memo.”
3.It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramgopal and others vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2021 (6) CTC 240
and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that the
plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete
justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited
or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is
also noteworthy that even in the absence of an
express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C.
conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate
and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction
exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution
embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.205 of 2020
criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete
justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the
overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal
justice system, which is grounded on the sublime
philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective
and that the rationale of placing an individual behind
bars is aimed at his reformation.
19. We thus sumup and hold that as opposed
to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely
guided by the compromise between the parties in
respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the
statutory framework, the extraordinary power
enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and
bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we
reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to
be exercised carefully in the context of quashing
criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and
effect of the offence on the conscious of the society;
(ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary
nature of compromise between the accused and the
victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior
to and after the occurrence of the purported offence
and/or other relevant considerations.
20. Having appraised the aforestated para-
meters and weighing upon the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the two appeals before us, we are
inclined to invoke powers under Article 142 and quash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.205 of 2020
the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside
the conviction in both the appeals. We say so for the
reasons that: Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in
these appeals can be categorized as purely personal
or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private
nature;
Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which
the Appellants have been convicted, do not appear to
exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an
offence of such a serious nature that quashing of
which would override public interest;
Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it
is immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had
been concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction
stand dismissed; Fourthly, the parties on their own
volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly
and voluntarily have buried their differences and wish
to accord a quietus to their dispute(s); Fifthly, the
occurrence(s) in both the cases took place way back
in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is
nothing on record to evince that either before or after
the purported compromise, any untoward incident
transpired between the parties;
Sixthly, since the Appellants and the
complainant(s) are residents of the same village(s)
and/or work in close vicinity, the quashing of criminal
proceedings will advance peace, harmony, and
fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to
forget and forgive any illwill and have no vengeance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.205 of 2020
against each other; and Seventhly, the cause of
administration of criminal justice system would
remain uneffected on acceptance of the amicable
settlement between the parties and/or resultant
acquittal of the Appellants; more so looking at their
present age.
4. Accordingly, the Judgment passed in C.A.No.80 of 2014,
dated 09.12.2019 on the file of the learned Additional District Court,
Srivilliputhur, confirming the Judgment, passed in S.T.C.No.55 of
2012, dated 21.04.2014 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Rajapalayam, are set aside.
5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The joint
compromise memo, dated 01.04.2022 shall form part and parcel of
this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
01.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.205 of 2020
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.
To
To
1.The Additional District Court,
Srivilliputhur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Rajapalayam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.205 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.205 of 2020
01.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
