Madras High Court
M/S Event India vs P.Suresh Kumar on 27 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.260 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.260 of 2018
1. M/s Event India,
a partnership firm
represented by its Managing Partner,
N.Prasanna,
569, D.B.Road,
R.S.Puram,
Coimbatore-641 002.
2. N.Prasanna ... Petitioners
Vs.
P.Suresh Kumar ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C, to allow the above Criminal Revision Petition by setting aside the
Judgment dated 15.11.2017 passed in C.A.No.174 of 2016 on the file of the II
Additional District Court, Erode reversing the Judgment dated 05.05.2016 passed
in S.T.C.No.568 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Fast Track
Court No.1), Erode.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Selvanambi
for Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
Crl.R.C.No.260 of 2018
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed as against the Judgment passed
in C.A.No.174 of 2016, dated 15.11.2017, on the file of the learned II Additional
District Court, Erode, thereby reversed the order passed in S.T.C.No.568 of
2012 dated 05.05.2016, on file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Fast Track
Court No.1), Erode.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
pending the revision, the parties have entered into a compromise. The respondent
had agreed to receive the cheque amount. Already the second petitioner had
deposited 50% of the cheque amount to the credit of the Trial Court. Now, the
second petitioner had also paid the remaining cheque amount to the respondent
and the same was also duly received by him.
3. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.260 of 2018
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
compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.260 of 2018
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;
Sixthly, since the Appellants and the complainant(s) are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.260 of 2018
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 above, the Judgment passed in C.A.No.174 of 2016,
dated 15.11.2017, on the file of the learned II Additional District Court, Erode, is
hereby set aside. The respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount which was
already deposited by the petitioner to the credit of S.T.C.No.568 of 2012, on file
of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Fast Track Court No.1), Erode, by way of filing
appropriate application. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall permit the
same, without ordering notice to the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case stands allowed.
27.10.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.260 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
mn
To
1.The II Additional District Court, Erode.
2.The Judicial Magistrate Court (Fast Track Court No.1), Erode.
Crl.R.C.No.260 of 2018
27.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
