Madras High Court
R.Senthilvelu vs K.Velumani on 12 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.391 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.391 of 2018
R.Senthilvelu ... Petitioner
Vs.
K.Velumani ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.A.No.220 of 2017 dated 20.12.2017 by the I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode and by confirming the order
passed in S.T.C.No.281 of 2015 dated 18.04.2017 by the Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track No.2, Erode and acquit the revision petitioners.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gandhi Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.K.T.S.Sivakumar
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed calling for the records in
C.A.No.220 of 2017 dated 20.12.2017 by the I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Erode and by confirming the order passed in S.T.C.No.281 of 2015
dated 18.04.2017 by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track No.2, Erode and acquit
the revision petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.391 of 2018
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
pending the revision, the petitioner and the respondent have amicably settled the
issue and the petitioner had settled the entire amount to the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent also concedes with the
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent
has no objection to set aside the conviction against the petitioner herein, since
the respondent had received the entire cheque amount.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.391 of 2018
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)
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.391 of 2018
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 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.391 of 2018
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, the order passed in C.A.No.220 of 2017
dated 20.12.2017 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, by
confirming the order passed in S.T.C.No.281 of 2015 dated 18.04.2017 by the
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track No.2, Erode, are hereby set aside.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case stands allowed.
12.10.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
mn
To
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.391 of 2018
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track No.2, Erode.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
mn
Crl.R.C.No.391 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.391 of 2018
12.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
