Madras High Court
K.P.Rajarathinam vs Rajendran on 12 April, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.153 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.153 of 2022
K.P.Rajarathinam ... Petitioner/
Appellant/
Accused
Vs.
Rajendran ... Respondent/
Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401
of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to judgment of
conviction and sentence imposed in C.A.No.10 of 2021 dated 29.10.2021 passed
by the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, confirming the judgement or
conviction and sentence passed in STC No.2960 of 2011, dated 15.03.2021 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Samudurai
For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatesan
for M/s.Right Law Associates
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.153 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the conviction and
sentence passed in STC No.2960 of 2011, dated 15.03.2021 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi.
2. The respondent lodged a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act as against the petitioner and the same has been
taken cognizance in S.T.C.No.2960 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Paramakudi. The trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. The trial Court also
awarded the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) as
double the cheque amount. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an
appeal and the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by
the trial Court. While suspending the sentence before the first appellate Court,
the petitioner was directed to deposit 50 % of the cheque amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.153 of 2022
3. Accordingly, the petitioner duly complied with the said condition by
depositing Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand only) as
50% of the cheque amount before the trial Court to the credit of S.T.C.No.2960 of
2011 on the file of the trial Court. Pending this revision, the remaining cheque
amount of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand only)
will also be directly paid by the petitioner to the respondent by way of Demand
Draft, dated 22.03.2022.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent also admitted the said fact and he
has no objection to set aside the conviction imposed on the petitioner.
5. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.153 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.153 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.153 of 2022
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.
6. In view of the above, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed
in C.A.No.10 of 2021, dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Principal District Court,
Ramanathapuram, in confirming the judgment the conviction and sentence passed
in STC No.2960 of 2011, dated 15.03.2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Paramakudi, are set aside. The respondent is permitted to withdraw the
amount, which was already deposited by the petitioner to the credit of S.T.C.No.
2960 of 2011. The trial Court is directed to disburse the amount to the respondent
forthwith after verifying the identity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.153 of 2022
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
12.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mga
To:-
1. The Principal District Court,
Ramanathapuram.
2. The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Paramakudi
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.153 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J
mga
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.153 of 2022
12.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
