Madras High Court

M/S.Vivians vs Suresh Ramalingam on 28 October, 2022

                                                                               Crl.R.C.No.1166 of 2018


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 28.10.2022

                                                    CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANL

                                             Crl.R.C.No.1166 of 2018


                M/s.Vivians,
                Rep. by its Proprietor Vijayalakshmisubburaj,
                2/650, Visved River View Enclave,
                3rd Main Road,
                Manapakkam,
                Chennai – 600 125.                                           ... Petitioner

                                                       Vs.
                Suresh Ramalingam,
                Proprietor of Varun Ceramics and Sanitary,
                131/6, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
                Senthil Nagar,
                Arumbakkam,
                Chennai – 600 026.                                           ... Respondent


                Prayer: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
                Cr.P.C, to call for the records of the case in Crl.A.No.41 of 2016 of the Court of
                the Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, Chegalpattu, and of C.C.No.190
                of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Alandur,
                examine the legality, the propriety and correctness of the proceedings before
                the lower Courts and also of the findings contained in the two judgments and
                set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge, confirming the judgment and
                order passed by the trial Court namely the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page 1 of 8
                                                                                Crl.R.C.No.1166 of 2018


                Court, Alandur Magistrate in C.C.No.190 of 2014 on 07.01.2016 and direct the
                acquittal of the petitioner of the charges levelled against him in the interest of
                justice and equity.

                                      For Petitioner      : Mr.D.Chandrasekar

                                      For Respondent      : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar


                                                       ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the judgment

passed in Crl.A.No.41 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,

Kancheepuram, Chegalpattu, and of C.C.No.190 of 2014 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Alandur, examine the legality, the

propriety and correctness of the proceedings before the lower Courts and also

of the findings contained in the two judgments and set aside the order of the

learned Sessions Judge, confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial

Court namely the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Alandur Magistrate in

C.C.No.190 of 2014 on 07.01.2016 and direct the acquittal of the petitioner of

the charges levelled against him in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while pending

this revision, the petitioner and the respondent have amicably settled the issue

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

Crl.R.C.No.1166 of 2018

arising out of the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 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 exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with

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

Crl.R.C.No.1166 of 2018

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.

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

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

Crl.R.C.No.1166 of 2018

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

Crl.R.C.No.1166 of 2018

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 above, the judgment passed by the learned Principal

Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, Chengalpattu, in C.A.No.41 of 2016 dated

13.06.2018 thereby confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.190 of 2014 on

the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Alandur, is hereby set

aside.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case stands allowed. The

respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount which is already deposited by

the petitioner before the trial court, by way of filing appropriate application. It

is made clear that the trial Court is directed to disburse the amount in favour of

the respondent without ordering notice to the petitioner.

28.10.2022

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order ata