Madras High Court
Fathima Beevi vs Mohammed Appa on 11 April, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.438 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.438 of 2018
Fathima Beevi ... Petitioner/
Appellant/Accused
Vs.
1.Mohammed Appa
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Public Prosecutor,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents/
Respondents/Complainants
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated
19.05.2017 made in Crl.A.No.4 of 2013 on the file of the Mahalir
Fast Track Court, Nagercoil, modifying S.T.C.No.1131 of 2012 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Fast Track Court, Nagercoil, dated
20.12.2012.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvakumaran
For R – 1 : Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar
For R – 2 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.R.C(MD)No.438 of 2018
ORDER
This revision has been filed to set aside the order made
in Crl.A.No.4 of 2013 on the file of the Mahalir Fast Track Court,
Nagercoil, dated 19.05.2017, dismissing the order made in
S.T.C.No.1131 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Fast Track Court, Nagercoil, dated 20.12.2012.
2.The petitioner is an accused and the first respondent
is the complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3.The case of the prosecution is that the respondent
issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the petitioner.
The said cheque was presented for collection and the same was
returned for the reason 'funds insufficient'. After causing statutory
notice, the first respondent lodged the complaint.
4.On the side of the first respondent, he himself was
examined as P.W.1 and also marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and on the side of
the petitioner, she himself was examined as D.W.1 and marked
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.438 of 2018
5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to
undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a sum of
Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the first respondent and in default,
to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.4 of 2013 on
the file of the Mahalir Fast Track Court, Nagercoil and the Appellate
Court also dismissed the same confirming the order of the trial
Court. Hence, the present revision.
6.While pending this revision, 50% of the cheque
amount was settled by the petitioner to the first respondent. Now
today, the remaining 50% of the cheque amount was paid to the
first respondent. Therefore, the entire cheque amount has been
paid as full and final settlement.
7.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(MD)No.438 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 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 extraordinary 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.438 of 2018
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 para-
meters 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.438 of 2018
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 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.
8.In view of the aforesaid, the judgment made in
Crl.A.No.4 of 2013 on the file of the Mahalir Fast Track Court,
Nagercoil, dated 19.05.2017, confirming the order made in
S.T.C.No.1131 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Fast Track Court, Nagercoil, dated 20.12.2012, is set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.438 of 2018
9.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The
first respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount which was
already deposited by the petitioner on the file of the trial Court.
11.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
To
1.The Mahalir Fast Track Court,
Nagercoil.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Fast Track Court,
Nagercoil.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.438 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.438 of 2018
11.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
