Madras High Court
J.Suthakar vs Krishnaswamy on 11 April, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.164 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.164 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.1410 and 1413 of 2020
J.Suthakar ... Petitioner
Vs.
Krishnaswamy ...Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C. to call for the records of the impugned Judgement, dated 14.03.2019
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Nagercoil in
C.A.No.13 of 2013, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court)No.I, Nagercoil in C.C.No.31 of
2012, dated 31.08.2012 and set aside the same by allowing the criminal revision
petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.George Paul Anto
For Respondent : Mr.T.Murugan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.164 of 2020
ORDER
The criminal original petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Nagercoil in
C.A.No.13 of 2013, dated 14.03.2019, thereby confirmed the conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court)No.I,
Nagercoil in C.C.No.31 of 2012, dated 31.08.2012.
2.While pending this revision petition, the petitioner and the respondent
have arrived at amicable settlement between them. On the settlement, the
petitioner has paid the entire cheque amount to the respondent herein. It was
also duly received by the respondent and now, he has no objection to set aside
the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner herein.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.164 of 2020
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 extra-
ordinary 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.164 of 2020
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.164 of 2020
amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant
acquittal of the Appellants; more so looking at their present
age.'
4.In view of the above, the order passed in C.A. No.13 of 2013, dated
14.03.2019 is set aside. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
11.04.2022
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
lr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.164 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lr
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.164 of 2020
11.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
