Madras High Court
R.Karthikeyan vs B.Ravikumar on 12 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.942 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.R.C.No.942 of 2018
1.R.Karthikeyan
2.R.K.S.Oil Mills,
Its Proprietor
R.Karthikeyan,
Maniyakarar Thottam,
Kangayam Road, Mettukadai,
Anapalayam,
Uthukuli, Tiruppur District. ... Petitioners
Vs.
B.Ravikumar ... Respondent
Prayer: The Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.1 of 2014 on
the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram,
Tiruppur dated 20.09.2017 confirming the judgment passed in S.T.C.No.391 of
2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam, Tiruppur, dated
03.12.2013 and allow this Revision.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Myilsamy
For Respondent : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
Crl.R.C.No.942 of 2018
ORDER
This petition has been filed to set aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.1
of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Dharapuram, Tiruppur, dated 20.09.2017 confirming the judgment passed in
S.T.C.No.391 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam,
Tiruppur, dated 03.12.2013.
2. Even at the time of filing this Revision, the petitioners filed joint
compromise memo before this Court which was entered between the
petitioners and the respondent herein.
3. A perusal of the joint compromise memo revealed that they had
arrived at a settlement and accordingly, the respondent agreed to receive a sum
of Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioners as full and final settlement. Accordingly,
the petitioner had taken Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- dated
06.08.2018 in DD.No.763061 drawn at Punjab National Bank, Kangayam, and
the same was duly encashed by the respondent. Thus, it is clear that they have
entered into a compromise and filed the same before this Court.
4. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.942 of 2018
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 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.942 of 2018
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 afore-stated 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;
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.942 of 2018
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-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, this Court is inclined to set aside the order of
conviction dated 20.09.2017 passed in C.A.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram, Tiruppur, in
S.T.C.No.391 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Kangayam,
Tiruppur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.942 of 2018
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision case stands allowed. The memo of
joint compromise filed by the parties shall form part and parcel of this order.
12.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
ata
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Dharapuram, Tiruppur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Kangayam, Tiruppur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.942 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ata
Crl.R.C.No.942 of 2018
12.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
