Madras High Court
Baby vs State By The Sub-Inspector Of ... on 31 October, 2022
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.12701, 12734, 12703 & 12736 of 2019
Crl.R.C.No.864 of 2019;-
Baby ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
T-4, Madhuravoyal Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.344 of 2012)
2.M.Uma ... Respondents
[R2 impleaded vide order dated
21.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.14281 of
2019 in Crl.R.C.No.867 of 2019]
Prayer: The Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the impugned judgment of the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamalle, dated 31.07.2019 in Crl.A.No.62
of 2018 confirming the sentence of the Judicial Magistrate at Poonamalle, in
C.C.No.1 of 2014 dated 27.03.2018 and acquit the petitioner/Accused 3 herein
of the charges in C.C.No.1 of 2014 (Crime No.344 of 2012) on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate II, Poonamalle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 14
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
Crl.R.C.No.867 of 2019;-
Anie ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
T-4, Madhuravoyal Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.344 of 2012)
2.M.Uma ... Respondents
[R2 impleaded vide order dated
21.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.14281 of
2019 in Crl.R.C.No.867 of 2019]
Prayer: The Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records and set aside the judgment of the Appellate
Court made in C.A.No.61 of 2018 dated 31.07.2019 on the file of the learned
II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, Poonamalle, in
dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and confirming the
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Poonamalle, in C.C.No.1 of 2014 by judgment dated 27.03.2018 in convicting
the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 465 IPC and sentencing him
to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in
default to undergo six months simple imprisonment also convicting the
petitioner herein for the offence under Section 468 IPC ans sentencing him to
undergo six months simple imprisonment and also convicting the petitioner
herein for the offence under Section 471 IPC and sentencing him to undergo
one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to
undergo six months simple imprisonment and all the sentence to run
concurrently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 14
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
Crl.R.C.No.1026 of 2019;-
Velu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
T-4, Madhuravoyal Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.344 of 2012)
2.M.Uma ... Respondents
[R2 impleaded vide order dated
21.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.14281 of
2019 in Crl.R.C.No.867 of 2019]
Prayer: The Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Poonamalle, in C.C.No.1 of 2014 judgment dated 27.03.2018
which has been confirmed in C.A.No.64 of 2018 on the file of the learned II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamalle, and acquit
the petitioner herein from the charges.
(In all the cases)
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Samadharma Arasu
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.D.Vijayababu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3 of 14
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
ORDER
Crl.R.C.No.864 of 2019 has been filed to set aside the impugned
judgment of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at
Poonamalle, dated 31.07.2019 in Crl.A.No.62 of 2018 confirming the sentence
of the Judicial Magistrate at Poonamalle, in C.C.No.1 of 2014 dated
27.03.2018 and acquit the petitioner/Accused 3 herein of the charges in
C.C.No.1 of 2014 (Crime No.344 of 2012) on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate II, Poonamalle.
2. Crl.R.C.No.867 of 2019 has been filed to set aside the judgment of
the Appellate Court made in C.A.No.61 of 2018 dated 31.07.2019 on the file
of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur,
Poonamalle, in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and
confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Poonamalle, in C.C.No.1 of 2014 by judgment dated
27.03.2018
3. Crl.R.C.No.1026 of 2019 has been filed to set aside the conviction
and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamalle, in
C.C.No.1 of 2014 judgment dated 27.03.2018 which has been confirmed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
C.A.No.64 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamalle, and acquit the petitioner herein
from the charges.
4. The case of the prosecution is that in the first week of February 1996,
the first accused went to the house of the defacto complainant and offered to
sell the land comprised in S.Nos.127/49 in Plot No.11 to an extent of 1000
Square feet situated at Abirami Nagar Extenstion, Maduravoyal, Chennai, and
also assured to hand over the land immediately after registration. Believing his
words, the defacto complainant's father purchased the said property in the
name of her daughter namely the defacto complainant, for a valid sale
consideration by the registered sale deed dated 01.03.1996. Thereafter, with an
intention to grab the said property, the first accused again sold the very same
property in the year 1997 in favour of the second accused. In turn, the second
accused sold the said property in favour of the third accused and registered a
sale deed in 2002. Again, the second accused sold 600 square feet out of the
1000 square feet in favour of the fourth accused by a registered sale deed on
19.07.2005. After purchasing the said 600 square feet land, the fourth accused
constructed a house and she was in possession. At that juncture, the defacto
complainant found about the aforesaid transactions and lodged a complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
5. On receipt of the said complaint the respondent registered FIR in
Crime No.344 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471
IPC and after completion of investigation the respondent filed final report and
the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.1 of 2014 for
the offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC.
6. On the side of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 5
as witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P8 as exhibits and on the side of the
petitioners, no one was examined and no document was marked.
7. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court found
all the accused persons guilty and sentenced them as follows;-
(i) The first accused is found guilty for the offence under Sections 420,
465, 468 and 471 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment
for six months for the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to
undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 465
IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to fine
of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
offence under Section 468 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo
six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 IPC and all
the above sentences were to run concurrently.
(ii) The second accused is found guilty for the offences under Sections
465, 468 and 471 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo six months simple
imprisonment for the offence under Section 465 IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to
undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sections 468
IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a
fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the
offence under Section 471 IPC and above sentences to run concurrently.
(iii) The third accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 471
IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay
fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
(iv) The fourth accused is guilty for the offence under Section 471 IPC
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine
of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
8. Aggrieved by the same, only the accused 2 to 4 preferred an appeal as
after conviction, the first accused had died and the appeal same was dismissed
confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Hence, the accused 2 to 4
had filed these revisions.
9. Pending these revisions, there is amicable settlement between the
parties namely the petitioners and the defacto complainant. Accordingly, the
accused 2 to 4 agreed to cancel the sale deed dated 27.06.2002 and
19.07.2005, which were registered vide Doc.Nos.3296 of 2002 and 4088 of
2005. Immediately after settlement, the fourth accused handed over the
possession of the subject property to the defacto complainant and the learned
counsel for the defacto complainant also confirmed the same. As per the
settlement, the accused 2 to 4 have no future claim in the subject property.
10. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
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 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)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
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 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.
11. It is seen that the petitioners are also bonafide purchasers. Further,
the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that they are very poor
persons and they have no means to pay any stamp duty while presenting the
cancellation deed. In fact, the fourth accused had put up construction in the
said land to the value of Rs.25 lakhs, immediately after purchase, which is now
worth about Rs.50 lakhs. Therefore, they lost everything and they are not in a
position to pay any stamp duty.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
12. Considering the above submission, the petitioners shall cancel the
sale deeds dated 27.06.2002 and 19.07.2005 on or before 14.11.2022 by
cancellation deeds. While presenting the necessary documents for cancellation
of sale deeds, the registering authority is hereby directed not to insist upon
payment of stamp duty except payment of registration fees. The registering
authority shall register the documents so presented for cancellation and hand
over the same to them forthwith. On receipt of the same, the petitioners are
directed to hand over the cancellation of sale deeds to the defacto complainant
forthwith. In so far as, the sale deed executed in favour of the second accused
dated 11.11.1997 is concerned, now the first accused, who executed the sale
deed in favour of the second accused died. Therefore, the sale deed executed in
favour of the second accused is hereby annulled and it is made clear that the
petitioners have no title or right over the subject property hereafter and the sale
deed executed in favour of the defacto complainant dated 01.03.1996 holds
good. If the petitioners failed to execute the cancellation of sale deeds, the
conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners shall automatically stand
restored. In such an event, the first respondent is directed to secure the
petitioners to enable them to serve the remaining period of sentence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
13. With the above directions, these criminal revision cases stand
allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
31.10.2022
ata
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
Note: Issue order copy on 02.11.2022.
To
1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Thiruvallur, Poonamalle.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Poonamalle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ata
CRL.R.C.Nos.864, 867 & 1026 of 2019
31.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
