Madras High Court
Seenivasan vs The State Represented By on 28 March, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.955 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.955 of 2021
& Crl.MP(MD) No.4098 of 2022
1. Seenivasan
2. Palaniappan ... Petitioners
Vs
The State represented by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Devakottai Taluk Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(Cr.No.75 of 2014) ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. to call
for the records from the lower Courts and set aside the judgement passed by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai in C.A.No.109 of
2018 dated 03/12/2020 by confirming the Judgment of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Devakottai in C.C No.86 of 2014, dated 24.08.2018.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.M.Sanjay
For Respondent : Mr.M.Aasha
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.955 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the judgment
passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai in
C.A.No.109 of 2018, dated 03.12.2020 by confirming the Judgment of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai in C.C No.86 of 2014, dated
24.08.2018.
2.While pending this revision case, the petitioners and the victim entered
into a compromise and also filed a joint compromise memo stating that the
dispute between them has been settled amicably, hence, the second respondent
does not want to proceed with the case and not willing to the petitioners into the
conviction. Therefore, the second respondent come forward to withdraw the
case.
3.Today (ie., 28.03.2022), when the matter is taken up for hearing, both
the accused persons/petitioners and the second respondent appeared before this
Court and the second respondent stated that as per the compromise memo, they
settled their issue amicably and he has no objection to set aside the conviction,
imposed on the petitioner. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the Judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in in the case of Ramgopal and others vs. The State
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.955 of 2021
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
powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the
context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.955 of 2021
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, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.955 of 2021
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.
4. 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. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is
allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Sivagangai in C.A.No.109 of 2018, dated 03/12/2020 by
confirming the Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai in C.C
No.86 of 2014, dated 24.08.2018 is hereby set aside. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.03.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
PNM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.955 of 2021
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
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai.
3.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Devakottai Taluk Police Station,
Sivagangai District. (Cr.No.75 of 2014)
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.955 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
PNM
ORDER IN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.955 of 2021
& Crl.MP(MD) No.4098 of 2022
28.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
