Madras High Court
J.Rayar vs M.Malar on 4 April, 2022
Crl.R.C(MD)No.472 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.472 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.4165 of 2020
J.Rayar ... Petitioner/Appellant/Accused
Vs.
M.Malar ... Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the
records relating to the Judgment dated 17.03.2020 in C.A.No.20 of
2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Pudukkottai, thereby confirming the Judgment of the learned
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, Pudukkottai, dated
20.08.2018 in S.T.C.No.818 of 2014 and convicted for the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo
simple imprisonment of one year and to pay compensation of
Rs.6,70,000/-.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.R.C(MD)No.472 of 2020
ORDER
This revision has been filed as against the Judgment dated
17.03.2020 made in C.A.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the learned
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, thereby confirming the
Judgment dated 20.08.2018 in S.T.C.No.818 of 2014 on the file of
the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi,
Pudukkottai and acquit the petitioner/accused.
2.While pending this revision, the petitioner and the
respondent have amicably settled and the petitioner paid the entire
cheque amount to the respondent.
3.Today, the petitioner as well as the respondent are present
before this Court and the respondent has no objection to set aside
the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner herein.
4.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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.472 of 2020
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.472 of 2020
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.472 of 2020
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
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.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment dated 17.03.2020
made in C.A.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the learned Sessions
Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, thereby confirming the Judgment
dated 20.08.2018 in S.T.C.No.818 of 2014 on the file of the learned
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, Pudukkottai are
set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.472 of 2020
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.472 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
1.The Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court,
Pudukkottai District.
2.The Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Alangudi,
Pudukkottai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.472 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.472 of 2020
04.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
