Madras High Court
V.K.Balamurugan vs Paulraj on 23 March, 2022
Crl.R.C(MD)No.169 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.169 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.2711 of 2022
V.K.Balamurugan ... Petitioner/Appellant/Accused
Vs.
Paulraj ... Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the
Judgment and conviction dated 27.04.2018 made in Crl.A.No.106
of 2016 on the file of the learned 6 th Additional District and Sessions
Court, Madurai, by which confirming the Judgment and conviction
order in STC.No.323 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I/Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Madurai, dated
01.11.2016 and acquit the petitioner/accused.
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Prabha
For Respondent : Mr.P.Ganesan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.R.C(MD)No.169 of 2022
ORDER
This revision has been filed as against the Judgment and
conviction dated 27.04.2018 made in Crl.A.No.106 of 2016 on the
file of the 6th Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai,
confirming the Judgment and conviction order in STC.No.323 of
2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I/Fast Track
Court at Magisterial Level, Madurai, dated 01.11.2016 and acquit
the petitioner/accused.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that after the conviction confirmed by the first Appellate
Court, the petitioner and the respondent have amicably settled the
issue by payment of entire cheque amount.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also
confirmed the same and submitted that the respondent has no
objection to set aside the conviction against the petitioner herein,
since the respondent received the entire cheque amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.169 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 between the parties in
respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.169 of 2022
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 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;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.169 of 2022
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.
5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court feels it appropriate to
invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and quash the
entire criminal proceedings in the present case. As a sequel thereto,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.169 of 2022
all the offences emanating out of the First Information Report
registered in Crime No.76 of 2007 leading to this revision stand
annulled. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the learned 6th
Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai in Crl.A.No.106 of
2016, dated 27.04.2018, confirming the Judgment passed in
STC.No.323 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I/Fast
Track Court at Magisterial Level, Madurai, dated 01.11.2016 are set
aside.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.169 of 2022
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
To
1.The 6th Additional District and Sessions Court,
Madurai.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I/
Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.169 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.169 of 2022
23.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
