Madras High Court
Babulal Surana vs Thomasrayan on 18 April, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.630, 631 & 632 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.630, 631 & 632 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.9675, 9676 & 9677 of 2018
Babulal Surana ... Petitioner/
Appellant/
Accused in all Cr.R.Cs'
Vs.
T.P.Selvarayan (deceased)
1.Thomasrayan
2.Rajamani
3.Jacquelyn ... Respondents/
Respondents/
Complainants in all Crl.R.Cs'
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Revision Cases filed under Section
397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the
order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli in Crl.A.Nos.129, 130 & 131 of 2015, dated 19.01.2018
in C.C.Nos.316, 236 and 237 of 2006 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur, dated 25.11.2015 and to allow this
revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramamurthy
For Respondents : Mr.S.Palani Velayutham
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.630, 631 & 632 of 2018
COMMON ORDER
These revisions have been filed to set aside the order
passed in Crl.A.Nos.129, 130 & 131 of 2015, dated 19.01.2018, on
the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli,
confirming the order passed in C.C.Nos.316, 236 and 237 of 2006,
dated 25.11.2015, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Valliyur.
2.The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged
by the deceased T.P.Selvarayan for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3.The deceased T.P.Selvarayan lodged the complaint
alleging that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as a
loan and in order to repay the said amount, he issued three
cheques. All the cheques were presented for collection and the
same was returned dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient'.
After causing statutory notice, the deceased T.P.Selvarayan lodged
the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.630, 631 & 632 of 2018
4.Before the trial Court, while pending trial,
T.P.Selvarayan died. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 were brought on
record as legal representatives of the deceased T.P.Selvarayan.
5.On the side of the respondents, they had examined
P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also marked Exs.P.1 to P.19 and on the side of
the petitioner, he had examined D.W.1 and D.W.2 and marked Ex.D.
1 to Ex.D.3 and the Court also marked Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.3.
6.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 three months Simple Imprisonment in all three cases and
awarded compensation to the tune of doubling the cheque amount
in all three cases. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred
appeals in Crl.A.Nos.129, 130 & 131 of 2015 on the file of the I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and the Appellate
Court also dismissed the same confirming the conviction and
sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the present revisions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.630, 631 & 632 of 2018
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that while suspending the sentence, this Court, by order,
dated 23.11.2018 imposed a condition to the petitioner to deposit
the cheque amounts in all three revisions. Accordingly, the
petitioner duly complied with the condition imposed by this Court
and also permitted the respondents to withdraw the same.
Accordingly, the respondents had also withdrawn the entire cheque
amount. They were also satisfied with the cheque amount which
was already deposited and subsequently withdrawn by them and
settled their issues amicably.
8.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.630, 631 & 632 of 2018
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.630, 631 & 632 of 2018
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)Nos.630, 631 & 632 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.
9.In view of the aforesaid, the Judgment passed in
Crl.A.Nos.129, 130 & 131 of 2015, dated 19.01.2018, on the file of
the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming
the order passed in C.C.Nos.316, 236 and 237 of 2006, dated
25.11.2015, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur, is
set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.630, 631 & 632 of 2018
10.Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Cases are
allowed. The petitioner/accused in all the cases is acquitted. Bail
bond if any executed by the petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled
and a fine amount if paid is ordered to be refunded to the
petitioner/accused forthwith. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
18.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
To
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Valliyur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.630, 631 & 632 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.630, 631 & 632 of 2018
18.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
