Madras High Court

Mohan vs State Rep.By on 23 March, 2022

                                                                          CRL.R.C(MD).No.235 of 2022


                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 23.03.2022

                                                     CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                             CRL.R.C(MD).No.235 of 2022

                     1.Mohan
                     2.Ashok
                     3.Kalidhass
                     4.Ramalingam                                                ... Petitioners

                                                         Vs


                     1.State rep.by
                     The Inspector of Police
                     Keelathooval Police Station,
                     Ramanathapuram District.
                     Crime No.85 of 2016

                     2.Sethupathy

                     3.Muthulakshmi                                            ... Respondents

                     R2 & R3 are impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 23.03.2022 in
                     Crl.M.P(MD).No.3875 of 2022 in Crl.R.C(MD).No.235 of 2022.

                     Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the
                     Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the
                     judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.11 of 2020 dated
                     23.11.2021 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram,


                     1/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                CRL.R.C(MD).No.235 of 2022


                     confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.61 of
                     2017 dated 20.03.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
                     Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District and allow the Criminal Revision
                     Petition.



                                       For Petitioner    : Mr.T.Veerakumar

                                       For Respondents    : M/s.M.Aasha
                                                            Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
                                                            for R1
                                                            Mr.G.Kalidoss for RR2 & 3




                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed as against the judgment

of conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.11 of 2020 dated 23.11.2021

by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, confirming

the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.61 of 2017 dated

20.03.2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur,

Ramanathapuram District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C(MD).No.235 of 2022

2. The petitioners are the accused in the complaint lodged by the

respondent. The trial Court convicted the first petitioner and sentenced him

to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as fine for the offence punishable under Section

294(b) of IPC, in default, to undergo one week simple imprisonment and to

undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable

under Section 324 of IPC and pay a sum of Rs.500/-as fine for the offence

punishable under Section 506(ii) of IPC, in default, to undergo one week

simple imprisonment. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein were sentenced to

undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable

under Section 324 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have

preferred an appeal in C.A.No.11 of 2019, however the same was dismissed

and the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by

the trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed this petition before this

Court.

3. While pending this Criminal Revision case, the petitioners and the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 have entered into compromise and settled the issues

amicably. They have also filed a joint compromise memo before this Court

as follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C(MD).No.235 of 2022

1. It is submitted that at the instance of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent registered a case in Crime No.85 of 2017 and after filing a Charge Sheet, the petitioners herein were convicted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur in C.C.No.61 of 2017 dated 20.03.2020.

2. It is submitted that the 1 st petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as fine for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) of IPC in default to undergo 1 week simple imprisonment and to undergo 3 years of rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under section 324 of IPC and pay a sum of Rs.500/- as fine for the offence punishable under section 506(ii) of IPC in default to undergo 1 week simple imprisonment and the Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein were convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under sections 324 of IPC.

3.It is further submitted that aggrieved over the same, the petitioners herein had filed a Appeal in C.A.No.11 of 2020 on the file of the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram and during the pending said Appeal, the petitioners herein and the 2nd & 3rd respondents herein entered into compromise with the help of the family members and village elders and accordingly, they had filed a Compromise Memo before the Learned Principal District and Sessions Court and the same was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C(MD).No.235 of 2022

returned stating as it is not maintainable.

4. It is further submitted that therefore on 02.10.2020, the petitioners herein had filed a Direction Petition before this Hon'ble Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 14420 of 2020 direct the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram to accept joint compromise memo filed by them and dispose the said Criminal Appeal accordingly. When the above said Direction Petition was pending before this Hon'ble Court, the Learned Appellate Court very hastily passed a judgment dated 23.11.2021 in Crl.A.No.11 of 2020 by confirming the judgment passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Mudukulathur in C.C.No.61 of 2017 and therefore, the said Direction Petition was withdrawn by them on 14.12.2021.

5. Under those circumstances, the petitioners herein has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.235 of 2022 challenging the above said judgments passed by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in C.A.No.11 of 2020 by Confirming the judgment passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Mudukulathur in C.C.No.61 of 2017.

6. The above said Criminal Revision Petition came up for admission on 09.03.2022 and since the petitioners herein and the 2nd & 3rd respondents are entered into compromise between them and with the help of the family

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C(MD).No.235 of 2022

members and village elders and buried their hatchet. It is pertinent to note that the 1st petitioner is own brother of the 2nd respondent herein and the 4th petitioner is paternal uncle of the 2nd respondent and other petitioners also is very close relatives and as such the 2nd & 3rd respondents herein do not want to proceed the present criminal case further as against them, since it is prejudice their further relationship between them.

Hence, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this Joint Compromise Memo and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.11 of 2020 dated 23.11.2021 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.61 of 2017 dated 20.03.2020 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram district, and allow this Criminal Revision Petition and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

4. All the parties are appeared before this Court. It is relevant to rely

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C(MD).No.235 of 2022

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C(MD).No.235 of 2022

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;

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,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C(MD).No.235 of 2022

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 un- effected 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, all the offences

emanating out of the First Information Report registered in Crime No.85 of

2016 leading to this revision stand annulled. Accordingly, the judgment

passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C(MD).No.235 of 2022

C.A.No.11 of 2020 dated 23.11.2021 confirming the judgment passed in

C.C.No.61 of 2017 dated 20.03.2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District is set aside.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.

23.03.2022