Madras High Court
T.Appavu vs Sri Gokulam Chit Funds Private ... on 18 April, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.581 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)No.581 of 2018
T.Appavu ... Petitioner/
Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
Sri Gokulam Chit Funds Private Limited,
Represented by its Assistant Professional Manager,
S.Perumal. ... Respondent/
Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment dated
13.06.2018 in Crl.A.No.37 of 2018 on the file of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Karur, confirming the Judgment of
conviction passed in C.C.No.445 of 2013 dated 13.03.2017 on the
file of the Fast Track Court at Judicial Magisterial Level, Karur.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deepak
For Respondent : Mr.S.Malaikani
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
Crl.R.C(MD)No.581 of 2018
ORDER
This revision has been filed as against the Judgment
made in Crl.A.No.37 of 2018, dated 13.06.2018 on the file of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karur, confirming the Judgment
of conviction passed in C.C.No.445 of 2013, dated 13.03.2017 on
the file of the Fast Track Court at Judicial Magisterial Level, Karur.
2.The petitioner is an accused and the respondent is the
complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
3.The crux of the complaint is that the petitioner was
one of the subscribers to the chit conducted by the respondent. He
was successful as the highest bidder of the fourth chit. After receipt
of the said amount, for the subsequent monthly subscription, he
executed a promissory note for the said amount, dated 31.07.2009.
However, he defaulted to the tune of Rs.38,152/-. In order to repay
the said amount, the petitioner issued cheque and the same was
presented for collection. However, the same was returned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.581 of 2018
dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient'. After causing
statutory notice, the respondent initiated the proceedings under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4.On the side of the respondent, he had examined P.W.1
and also marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and on the side of the petitioner, he
had not examined any witness and no documents were marked.
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 three months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default, to undergo 30 days Simple Imprisonment.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in
Crl.A.No.37 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Karur and the Appellate Court also dismissed the same
confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
Hence, the present revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.581 of 2018
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that while suspending the sentence, this Court, by order,
dated 22.10.2018, directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of
Rs.40,000/- to the credit of the trial Court. Accordingly, the
petitioner duly complied with the condition imposed by this Court
and he has no objection to withdraw the said amount by the
respondent.
7.Considering the above circumstances and the
settlement arrived between the parties, this Court is inclined to set
aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below.
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)No.581 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
victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.581 of 2018
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
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;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.581 of 2018
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 made in
Crl.A.No.37 of 2018, dated 13.06.2018 on the file of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Karur, confirming the Judgment of made
in C.C.No.445 of 2013, dated 13.03.2017 on the file of the Fast
Track Court at Judicial Magisterial Level, Karur is set aside.
10.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
The petitioner/accused 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. The
respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount which was already
deposited by the petitioner on the file of the trial Court by way of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.581 of 2018
filing proper application before the trial Court. It is made clear that
the trial Court is directed to permit the respondent to withdraw the
said amount without ordering notice to the petitioner.
18.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge,
Karur.
2.The Fast Track Court at Judicial Magisterial Level,
Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.581 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.581 of 2018
18.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
