Madras High Court
K.Anbuselvam vs K.Murugan on 2 December, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1123 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.RC.No.1123 of 2019
K.Anbuselvam ... Petitioner
Vs.
K.Murugan ... Respondent
PRAYER:
Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and to set aside the judgment
dated 24.09.2019 passed in CA.No.29 of 2019 on the file of the learned
III Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram, Kallakurichi by confirming
the judgment dated 19.03.2019 passed in CC.No.11 of 2018 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate(Fast Track), Kallakurichi.
For Petitioner : M/s.R.Amsalekha
For Respondent : Mr.K.A.Ramakrishnan
ORDER
This criminal revision has been filed to set aside the
judgment dated 24.09.2019 passed in CA.No.29 of 2019 on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1123 of 2019
learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram, Kallakurichi
confirming the judgment dated 19.03.2019 passed in CC.No.11 of 2018
by the learned Judicial Magistrate(Fast Track), Kallakurichi.
2. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. While pending this revision, parties entered into
compromise and amicably settled the issues between them. On receipt of
Rs.5,50,000/- as full and final settlement, they also entered into a joint
compromise memo dated 02.12.2022 and the relevant portion of the same
is extracted hereunder:
3. The petitioner and respondent are amicably
settled their dispute out of court and amicably
compromised. The respondent / complainant agreed to
receive the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from the revision
petitioner / accused for full and final settlement and
withdraw his complaint and compound the case.
Therefore totally Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and
Fifty Thousand only) agreed to receive by the
respondent / complainant for executing this joint
compromise memo.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1123 of 2019
4. The respondent filed 138 NI Act private
criminal complaint against the petitioner before the
learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track), Kallakurichi
in CC.No.11 of 2018, the Trial court passed conviction
order against the revision petitioner. After that the
revision petitioner filed appeal before the learned III
Additional Sessions Judge at Kallakurichi in
Crl.A.No.29 of 2019. After that the Criminal appeal also
dismissed. After that the petitioner filed the above
revision petition before this Court in Crl.RC.No.1123 of
2019. The petitioner already deposited 50% of cheque
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in CC.No.11 of 2018 before the
learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track), Kallakurichi.
The Revision petitioner gives no objection to withdraw
the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by the respondent /
complainant from the learned Judicial Magistrate in
Kallakurichi in CC.No.11 of 2018. The balance amount
of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand
only) received by the respondent / complainant on today
02.12.2022 for full and final settlement.
5. The petitioner and respondent are jointly
compromise their dispute and settled the matter out of
court. The respondent also ready to withdraw the
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in CC.No.11 of 2018. The
Balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- received by the
respondent from the petitioner / accused by way of cash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1123 of 2019
on 02.12.2022. Therefore totally Rs.5,50,000/- received
by the respondent from the petitioner for full and final
settlement.
6. The respondent is given full consent for
compound the offence and set aside the sentence and
judgment of CC.No.11 of 2018 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track) Kallakurichi and
Crl.A.No.29 of 2019 passed by the learned III Additional
Sessions Judge at Kallakurichi as against the revision
petitioner.
7. The revision petitioner and respondent are
jointly executed this joint compromise memo on this 2nd
day of December 2022 in the presence of both side
counsel. Further this Joint Compromise Memo executed
by the petitioner and respondent with free consent and
not coercion, or threat or force. Both the petitioner and
respondent are jointly compromise their dispute out of
court.
4. Today, both the parties are also present before this Court and
the respondent has no objection to set aside the conviction in view of
compromise entered between them.
5. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramgopal and others vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1123 of 2019
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1123 of 2019
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 depravity or commission of an offence of
such a serious nature that quashing of which would
override public interest;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1123 of 2019
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.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment dated 24.09.2019 passed
in CA.No.29 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1123 of 2019
Judge, Villupuram, Kallakurichi and the judgment dated 19.03.2019
passed in CC.No.11 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate(Fast
Track), Kallakurichi. are set aside. The above joint compromise memo
dated 02.12.2022 shall form part and parcel of this order. Whatever the
amount deposed by the petitioner to the credit of the trial court in
CC.No.11 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast
Track Court, Kallakurichi, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the
same by way of filing an application. It is made clear that the trial court
is directed to permit the respondent to withdraw the said amount without
ordering any notice to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is allowed.
02.12.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1123 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1123 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The learned III Additional Sessions Judge,
Villupuram, Kallakurichi
2.The learned Judicial Magistrate(Fast Track),
Kallakurichi.
Crl.RC.No.1123 of 2019
02.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
