Madras High Court
M.Kannan vs M.Sankar Anand on 7 April, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD) Nos.335 & 336 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.335 & 336 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.4249 & 4252 of 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.335 of 2022:
M.Kannan ... Petitioner/ Appellant/
Accused
Vs.
M.Sankar Anand ... Respondent/ Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the judgment
passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in
Crl.A.No. 30 of 2020, dated 14.02.2022 confirming the judgement of the learned
FTC No.II at Judicial Magistrate Level, Madurai in S.T.C No.774 of 2012, dated
20.01.2020, sentencing the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and to undergo for six months simple
imprisonment and also imposed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) Nos.335 & 336 of 2022
under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal
Revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.336 of 2022:
M.Palanikumar ... Petitioner/Appellant/
Accused
Vs.
M.Sankar Anand ... Respondent/Respondent
Complainant
Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the judgment
passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, in
Crl.A.No. 29 of 2020, dated 14.02.2022 confirming the judgement of the learned
FTC No.II at Judicial Magistrate Level, Madurai in S.T.C.No.482 of 2012, dated
20.01.2020, sentencing the petitioner/Appellant/Accused under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and to undergo for six months simple
imprisonment and also imposed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation
under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal
Revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) Nos.335 & 336 of 2022
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed to set aside the orders
passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in
Crl.A.No. 30 of 2020 and Crl.A.No. 29 of 2020, dated 14.02.2022 confirming the
judgement of the learned FTC No.II at Judicial Magistrate Level, Madurai in
S.T.C No.774 of 2012 and S.T.C.No.482 of 2012, dated 20.01.2020, sentencing
the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act 1881 and to undergo for six months simple imprisonment and also imposed
an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
2. While pending the revisions, the entire cheque amount has been paid by
the petitioners to the respondent. Both the parties have amicably settled the
issues and reported before this Court.
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 petitioners herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) Nos.335 & 336 of 2022
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:-
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) Nos.335 & 336 of 2022
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 parameters 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) Nos.335 & 336 of 2022
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 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) Nos.335 & 336 of 2022
5. Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Cases are allowed and the
judgment passed in Crl.A.No. 30 of 2020 and Crl.A.No. 29 of 2020, dated
14.02.2022 are set aside. The conviction and sentence passed by the Court below
is also set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mga
To:-
1. The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Madurai.
2. FTC No.II at Judicial Magistrate Level,
Madurai.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) Nos.335 & 336 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J
mga
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.335 & 336 of 2022
07.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
