Madras High Court

S.Vasantha vs S.Udayaraj on 14 October, 2022

                                                                                  Crl.R.C.No.584 of 2018

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 14.10.2022

                                                          CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                   Crl.R.C.No.584 of 2018


                S.Vasantha                                                         ... Petitioner

                                                             Vs.
                S.Udayaraj                                                         ... Respondent

                Prayer: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
                Cr.P.C, to set aside the Judgment of learned I Additional District and Session
                Judge of Erode made in C.A.No.272 of 2017 dated 17.04.2018 reversing the
                Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court No.I Erode in
                S.T.C.No.144 of 2017 dated 22.09.2017.
                                           For Petitioner   : Mr.C.D.Johnson
                                           For Respondent   : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan
                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the Judgment of

learned I Additional District and Session Judge of Erode, made in C.A.No.272

of 2017 dated 17.04.2018 reversing the Judgment of the learned Judicial

Magistrate Fast Track Court No.I Erode in S.T.C.No.144 of 2017 dated

22.09.2017.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.584 of 2018

pending the revision, the parties have entered into a compromise and the

petitioner had settled the entire amount as per the settlement. They also entered

into memorandum of joint compromise and produced before this Court.

Accordingly, the cheque amount has been settled in favour of the respondent

herein.

3. The respondent has no objection to the set aside the conviction

imposed by the Trial Court on the petitioner.

4. The Joint memo of Compromise dated 06.10.2022, is extracted

hereunder,

2022 tUlk;. mf;nlhgh; khjk; 06k; njjp <nuhL “ khtl;lk;. bgUe;Jiw nuhL. fhkuh$h; efu;. f/ vz; 31 vd;w Kftupapy; trpf;Fk; gp/Rg;gpukzp mtu;fspd; kfd; jpU/v!;/cjauh$; (1k; ,yf;fkpl;ltu;) nfhaKj;J}h; khtl;lk;. mtpehrp nuhL. gadPu; mghh;l;bkz;l;. f/vz;/5-V vd;w Kftupapy; trpj;J tUk; nyl;/nrfud; mtu;fspd; kidtp v!;/tre;jh (2k; yf;fkpl;ltu;) 1 ,yf;fkpll; tu; 2k; ,yf;fkpl;ltu; kPJ fhnrhiy nkhro tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;J nkw;go tHf;F <nuhL tpiut[ ePjpkd;wk; (Fw;wtpay; eLtu; epiy) vz;/1 (S.T.C.No.144/2017) nkw;go tHf;fpy; 2 ,yf;fkpll; tu; kPJ tHf;F ePUgzk; bra;agltpy;iy vd;W tpLjiy bra;ag;gl;lhu; nkw;go jPu;ig vjpu;j;J 1 ,yf;fkpl;ltu; <nuhL khtl;l ePjpkd;wj;jpy; mg;gPy; jhf;fy; bra;jhu;/ nkw;go mg;gPy;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.584 of 2018

C.A.No.272/2017 nfhg;gpw;F vLf;fg;gl;L fPHik ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jPu;g;g[ uj;J bra;ag;gl;L 2 ,yf;fkpl;ltUf;F jz;lid tH';fg;gl;lJ/ me;j jz;lizia vjpu;j;J 2 ,yf;fkpl;ltu; brd;id cau;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; rPuha;t[ kD jhf;fy; bra;jhu;/ me;j rPuha;t[ (CRL.R.C.584/2018) kDtpy; 2 ,yf;fkpl;ltUf;F gpiz tH';fg;gl;L fPHik (tpiut[ ePjpkd;wk; (Fw;wtpay; eLtu; epiy) vz;/1. <nuhL) 2 ,yf;fkpl;ltu; U:gha;/1.00.000-- itg;gPL bra;a ntz;Lbkd cj;jputpl;lJ/ mjd;go 2k; ,yf;fkpl;ltu; <nuhL tpiut[ ePjpkd;wk; (Fw;wtpay; eLtu; epiy) vz;/1 itg;gPL bra;jhu;/ ,e;j epiyapy; ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F btspna ,Ujug;gpw;Fk; rkurk; Vw;gl;lJ/ nkw;go fhnrhiy bjhifia 1 ,yf;fkpl;ltu; 2 ,yf;fkpl;ltuplkpUe;J bgw;Wf;bfhz;lhu;/ vdnt 2 ,yf;fkpl;ltu; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s rPuha;t[ kDit (CRL.R.C.584/2018) fzk; nkd;ikkpF brd;id cau;ePjpkd;wk; mDkjpf;f ntz;Lbkd nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpwhu;/ nkYk; 2 ,yf;fkpl;ltu; <nuhL tpiut[ ePjpkd;wk; (Fw;wtpay; eLtu; epiy) vz;/1 itg;gPL bra;Js;s bjhif U:gha;/1.00.000-- 2 ,yf;fkpl;ltnu bgw;Wf;bfhs;s 1 ,yf;fkpl;ltUf;F ve;jtpjkhd Ml;nrgida[k; ,y;iy vd;gijt[k; bjuptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpwhu;/ ,dp nkw;bfhz;L 1 kw;Wk; 2 ,yf;fkpl;l ,UtUf;Fk; ,UtUf;Fkpilna ve;jtpjkhd bfhLf;fy; th';fy; ,y;iybad;Wk;. ,Ujug;gpdUf;Fkpilna ,dp ve;jtpjkhd rk;ge;jKk;. ,y;iybad;W ,Ujug;gpdUk; KG kdJld; rk;kjpj;J ,e;j tu;jkhd xg;ge;j gj;jpuj;jpy; rhl;rpfs; Kd;dpiyapy; ,d;W bfbaGj;J bra;fpnwhk;/”

5. 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:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.584 of 2018

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.584 of 2018

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 compromise, any untoward incident transpired between the parties;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.584 of 2018

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.

6. In view of the above, the Judgment of the learned I Additional District

and Session Judge of Erode, made in C.A.No.272 of 2017 dated 17.04.2018

reversing the Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court

No.I Erode, in S.T.C.No.144 of 2017 dated 22.09.2017, is hereby set aside and

the terms of Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 06.10.2022, shall form part and

parcel of this Order.

7. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount deposited

by her before the Trial Court by filing appropriate application.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case stands allowed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.584 of 2018

14.10.2022