Madras High Court
Mrs.Pattammal vs Mr.S.Manikandan on 21 December, 2023
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.2223 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.2223 of 2023
and
Crl MP Nos.19936 & 20120 of 2023
Mrs.Pattammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Mr.S.Manikandan
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Public Prosecutor,
The Nilgiris. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and
401 of Cr.P.C, set aside the judgement passed by the Sessions Judge of
Magalir Neethimandra (FTMC), Uthagamandalam, The Nilgiris in
C.A.No.30 of 2022 dated 21.08.2023 confirming the conviction and
sentence passed by the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Court, Gudallur, in STC No.30 of 2017 dated 23.06.2023.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.2223 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Saisivaramaraj
For R1 : Mr.S.Ajith Kumar for R1
For R2 : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the judgement
passed by the Sessions Judge of Magalir Neethimandra (FTMC),
Uthagamandalam, The Nilgiris in C.A.No.30 of 2022 dated 21.08.2023
confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudallur, in STC No.30 of 2017
dated 23.06.2023.
2.The petitioner is an accused in a private complaint filed by the
complainant for an offence under Section 200 of Cr.PC r/w.Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Trial Court in STC No.30 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
convicted the petitioner and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for
six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months in addition and further directed the petitioner
to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant within a period of three
months towards compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.PC. Aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in CA No.30 of 2022 and the
same was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court on 21.08.2023.
Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision case has been filed
before this Court.
3.The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent projected a
case as though the petitioner and the respondent are family friends, the
petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondent to meet the
family expenses on 23.05.2016 and promised to repay the same on or before
23.09.2016. In discharge of the liability, the petitioner issued a cheque for a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. When the same was presented for encashment, it got
dishonoured and thereafter, the respondent filed a private complaint.
4.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
respondent is a total stranger to the petitioner. He would submit that it was
one Thenmozhi, who had some chit transaction with the respondent and on
her request, a signed blank cheque was given as security to D.W.2 on the
promise that D.W.2 would pay the respondent and return back the cheque.
The petitioner has got no transaction or any liability to be discharged
towards the respondent. To prove the fact, the petitioner examined herself
as D.W.1 and the said Thenmozhi as D.W.2, but the Trial Court disbelieved
the explanaction of the petitioner and convicted the petitioner and sentenced
her six months simple imprisonment, imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- and
further directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to the complainant
as compensation. He would further submit that the Apex Court as well as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
this Court in several cases held that the Magistrate on conviction after
imposing jail sentence and fine sentence, cannot order compensation.
Hence, on this ground alone the judgment of the Trial Court which was
confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court to be set aside. Further, without
going into the merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
since the petitioner is employed as Staff Nurse in a Government Hospital,
due to the conviction sustained she approached the respondent and on the
intervention of common friends, compromise was arrived between them and
on 24.11.2023, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.4 lakhs which was received
by the respondent, for which a compromise deed was also entered which has
been annexed in the typed set of papers. He further submitted that the
respondent/complainant had given an undertaking that he will not pursue the
case any further.
5.The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defence taken by the petitioner had been negatived and the Trial Court
convicted the petitioner as stated above which was confirmed by the Lower
Appellate Court. But he fairly submitted that compromise was entered into
between the petitioner and the respondent on 24.11.2023 and the entire
cheque of Rs.4 lakhs was paid.
6.The petitioner/accused has filed a compounding petition along with
affidavit before this Court in Crl.M.P.No.20120 of 2023 in Crl.R.C.No.2223
of 2023 invoking Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to
compound the offence and the same is ordered.
7.This Court had an enquiry with both the petitioner and the
respondent through video conferencing. The respondent reaffirmed the
compromise entered with the petitioner and filing of joint compromise
memo.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.In view of the above development and in the interest of both the
parties not to keep these proceedings pending since it will affect their future
life, this Court is inclined to compound the case.
9.In the result, the case between the petitioner and the respondent is
compounded. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court, dated 23.06.2023 in
S.T.C.No.30 of 2017 and the judgment of the lower appellate Court, dated
21.08.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2022 are set aside and the revision
is, accordingly, allowed. The petitioner is acquitted of all the charges
levelled against her. The above case cannot be quoted against her in any
proceedings. Consequently, the connected Crl.M.P.No.19936 of 2023 is
closed.
21.12.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
cse/rka
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Principal District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudallur,
2.The Sessions Judge,
Magalir Neethimandra (FTMC),
Uthagamandalam, The Nilgiris.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
The Nilgiris.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse/rka
21.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
