Madras High Court
S.J.Subramanian vs S.A.Adalarasan on 10 October, 2022
CRL.R.C.No.969 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.969 of 2018
S.J.Subramanian ... Petitioner
Vs.
S.A.Adalarasan ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w
401 of Cr.P.C to set-aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.2 of 2017 on the
file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, dated
21.08.2017 confirming the judgment passed in S.T.C.No.1159 of 2010 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, dated 09.12.2016 and
acquitted the accused.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Veeraraghavan
For Respondent : Mr.B.Kumarasamy
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set-aside the judgment
passed in C.A.No.2 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Salem, dated 21.08.2017, confirming the judgment passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.969 of 2018
in S.T.C.No.1159 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Salem, dated 09.12.2016.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that pending the revision, the parties have entered into compromise and the
petitioner had settled the entire amount as per the settlement directly to the
respondent. They also entered into a joint compromise and it is produced
before this Court.
3. The Joint memo of Compromise dated 06.10.2022, is extracted
hereunder,
“ 1. The respondent filed Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act complaint as against the petitioner in
S.T.C.No.1159 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No III,
Salem and the same was allowed and convicted the petitioner by
judgment dated 09.12.2016. Against the Judgment of conviction
petitioner filed an appeal on the file of Additional District Judge
No II, Salem in C.A.No.2 of 2017 and the same was dismissed by
judgment dated 21.08.2017. Aggrieved on the concurrent finding
the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Petition before this
Hon'ble Court in Crl.R.C.No.969 of 2018 and the same was
posted for reporting settlement dated on 10.10.2022 by this
honourable court. Thereafter the petitioner and respondent herein
had amicable settled the dispute by paying the disputed amount
involved in the case by petitioner to respondent and thereby they
decided to compound the offence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.969 of 2018
2. It is submitted that even though the offence committed
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is compoundable
in nature, in view of concurrent findings of conviction imposed as
against the petitioner up to this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner and
respondent in view of amicable settlement arrived between them
as stated supra. They are approaching this Hon'ble Court through
this petition by invoking inherent power of this Hon'ble Court for
want of appropriate remedy. ”
4. 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.
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 sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.969 of 2018
collective and that the rationale of placing an individual
behind bars is aimed at his reformation.
19. We thus sum-up 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 underArticle 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.969 of 2018
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 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 ill-will and have no
vengeance against each other; and Seventhly, the cause of
administration of criminal justice system would remain un-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.969 of 2018
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 above, the judgment passed in C.A.No.2 of 2017
on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, dated
21.08.2017 confirming the judgment passed in S.T.C.No.1159 of 2010 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, dated 09.12.2016, are
hereby set-aside and the terms of Joint Memo of Compromise, dated
06.10.2022, shall form part and parcel of this Order.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case stands allowed.
10.10.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
mn
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.969 of 2018
mn
To
1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem.
Crl.R.C.No.969 of 2018
10.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
