Madras High Court
E.Baskar vs R.Loganathan on 30 June, 2023
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.3283 & 3285 of 2021 and 9384 of 2023
E.Baskar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.R.Loganathan
2.Imavathy
3.Mohan Babu
4.Saravanan
5.Gowtham
6.Baranikumar ... Respondents
[R2 to R6 are impleaded as per suo-motu
order of this Court, dated 22.06.2023 in
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021]
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment dated 12.07.2019 made in
C.C.No.3743 of 2017, on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court
at Magistrate Level No.IV, George Town, Chennai – 600001 and confirmed by
the lower appellate Court made in C.A.No.280 of 2019 dated 05-02-2021 on
the file of VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and acquit the revision
petitioner by allowing this revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Nixon
For Respondents : Mr.M.Venkatesan
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/14
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner was convicted by judgment, dated 12.07.2019 in
C.C.No.3743 of 2012 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court
No.IV, George Town, Chennai/trial Court, for offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo one year Simple
Imprisonment and to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the 1st respondent
within one month, in default of payment the petitioner to undergo a further
period of two months Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved over the judgment of
the trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the learned VI
Additional Sessions Judge, FAC VII Additional Court, Chennai/lower appellate
Court in C.A.No.280 of 2019. The learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, by
judgment, dated 05.02.2021, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of
the trial Court, against which the present revision.
2.Gist of the case is that the petitioner approached the 1st respondent and
borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in the month of December 2016 in order to
meet out his family contingencies and other expenses including to meet out his
children education and promised to repay the said amount within three months
with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. At the time of borrowing the
amount, the petitioner issued two cheques (cheque Nos.000234 & 000235) in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021
favour of the 1st respondent each for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on HDFC
Bank, Prakasam Salai Branch, Chennai. When the cheques were presented for
encashment, the same were dishonoured and returned due to funds insufficient.
The return of cheques were intimated to the petitioner vide legal notice, dated
03.10.2017 which was received by him on 05.10.2017. Having received the
notice, the petitioner neither made any reply nor returned the amount. Hence,
the 1st respondent filed the complaint before the trial Court for offence under
Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3.During trial, the 1st respondent examined himself as PW1 and one
K.Srinivasan was examined as PW2 and marked four documents, namely,
Cheques, Return Memo, Legal Notice and Acknowledgement Card (Exs.P1 to
P4). On the side of the petitioner, no witness examined, but one exhibit marked
as Ex.D1.
4.The trial Court on conclusion of trial found the petitioner guilty and
convicted him and sentenced to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to
pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the 1st respondent in default, to undergo
two months Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved over the judgment of the trial
Court, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the learned VI
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021
Additional Sessions Judge, FAC VII Additional Court, Chennai/lower appellate
Court in C.A.No.280 of 2019. The learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, by
judgment, dated 05.02.2021, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of
the trial Court, against which the present revision.
5.This Court on 15.06.2023 & 22.06.2023 passed the following orders:
“Order dated 15.06.2023:
The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.3743 of
2017, a private complaint filed by the respondent-R.Loganathan,
S/o.Ramaiya, No.5, 4th Main Road, Thiruvalluvar Nagar,
Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118.
2. The gist of the complaint is that the petitioner herein
availed a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the
complainant/Loganathan during the month of December, 2016
with a promise to repay the amount within a period of three
months with interest of 18%. In discharge of the said liability,
the petitioner/accused given two cheques for a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- each, in favour of said Loganathan bearing
Cheque Nos.000234 and 000235 drawn on HDFC Bank,
Prakasam Salai Branch, Chennai – 108. Thereafter, the cheques
were presented for encashment on 25.09.2017 and the same were
returned with an endorsement as “Funds Insufficient”.
Thereafter, legal notice was sent to the petitioner/accused and
the same was served on him on 05.10.2017. In spite of receipt of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021
legal notice, the petitioner/accused failed to repay the cheque
amount. Therefore, following the legal procedure, the complaint
has been filed before the trial Court.
3. During trial, on the side of the complainant two
witnesses examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked four
documents as Exs.P1 to P4. On the side of the accused, none
examined and marked one document as Ex.D1. The trial Court
after full-fledged trial found the contention of the
petitioner/accused as unsustainable and convicted the petitioner
and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and
to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant.
Aggrieved against the conviction, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.280 of 2019. The
learned Sessions Judge by a judgment dated 05.02.2021,
dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court, against which, the present revision has
been filed.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is
willing to settle the issue with the respondent/complainant and
expressed the same before this Court. Thereafter, the case was
forwarded to High Court Legal Services Authority, wherein the
son of Loganathan appeared and informed that Loganathan has
passed away and they were willing to settle the issue. It is further
contented that the settlement was arrived at for a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/-. Since Loganathan/complainant's legal heirs did
not turn up to produce any materials for the same, the issue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021
could not be resolved. Even, today the petitioner/accused is
ready for settlement.
5. Mr.L.Ganesh, learned counsel representing
Mr.M.Venkatesan, submitted that his senior Mr.M.Venkatesan is
held up in trial Court at Poonamallee and hence, seeks small
accommodation.
6. Since the petitioner is willing for a settlement and the
respondent counsel is unable to help the Court, this Court directs
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to ensure the presence
of deceased complainant/Loganathan's legal heirs along with
death certificate of Loganathan and legal heir certificate, if
available, before this Court without fail on 19.06.2023.
7. The jurisdictional Inspector of Police is directed to
ensure the presence of legal heirs of deceased
Loganathan/complainant on 19.06.2023.
8. Registry is directed to print the name of Public
Prosecutor in the cause- list and post the matter on 19.06.2023.
Order dated 22.06.2023:
As per directions given by order dated 15.06.2023,
Mr.T.Saravanan, Inspector of Police, P6-Kodungaiyur Police
Station, Pulianthope District has produced the legal heirs of
Loganathan.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner /
accused submits that even today, the accused is ready to settle
the cheque amount. Earlier, during mediation on 14.10.2022, a
settlement was arrived with the legal heirs of R.Loganathan but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021
thereafter, the legal heirs have not taken any steps to get
impleaded themselves in this case.
3.In continuation to the earlier order passed by this Court
on 15.06.2023, the legal heirs namely, Imavathi, wife of
Loganathan, Mohan Babu, Saravanan, Gowtham and Barani
Kumar, who are the sons of Loganathan are present today. They
have produced the legal heir certificate of Loganathan. The
respondent Police also confirmed that the above persons, who
are present before this Court are the legal heirs of Loganathan.
4.In view of the same, it is clear that the above five
members are the legal heirs of Loganathan and they are brought
on record as R2 to R7 in this case. They would further submit
that they have already engaged one M.Venkatesan, who is their
father's Advocate as counsel and he will continue to represent
for them before this Court.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks further time
to ascertain whether Baskar / petitioner is willing for settlement
or not.
6.The Inspector of Police, Seven Wells shall ensure the
presence of Baskar/petitioner before this Court on 27.06.2023.
Post this case on 27.06.2023.”
6.During the pendency of the present revision, on 28 th July, 2022, the 1st
respondent/complainant died leaving behind his legal heirs, namely, Imavathi
(wife), Mohan Babu, Saravanan, Gowtham and Barani Kumar (Sons). Hence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021
this Court, by order, dated 22.06.2023, suo motu impleaded the legal heirs of 1st
respondent/complainant as respondents 2 to 6. The scanned reproduction of the
legal heir certificate is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021
7.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after two concurrent
findings of trial Court as well as lower appellate Court, the petitioner
approached the legal heirs of the 1st respondent/R2 to A6 for full and final
settlement. On that score, the petitioner and the legal heirs of the 1st
respondent/R2 to R6 settled the issued before the Mediation Centre, as a result,
the petitioner undertakes to settle the amount of Rs.2,75,000/- towards full and
final settlement. The legal heirs of the 1st respondent/R2 to R6 agreed for the
same and also agreed to give quites to the dispute between them.
8.Today, the petitioner and legal heirs of 1st respondent/R2 to R6 are
present before this Court. The legal heirs of the 1 st respondent/R2 to R6 admit
the settlement entered with the petitioner by receiving the amount of
Rs.2,75,000/- and agreeing to give quites to the issue. Earlier, this Court had
directed the above revision to be posted along with other cases before the Lok
Adalat on 12.08.2020. Out of Rs.2,75,000/-, the petitioner handed over
Rs.1,95,000/- to the legal heirs of 1st respondent/R2 to R6 by way of cash and
for the balance amount of Rs.80,000/-, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner while granted suspension of sentence, he was
ordered to pay Rs.80,000/-, that is 20% of the cheque amount, in C.C.No.3743
of 2017, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.IV,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021
George Town, Chennai, vide challan No.161340, dated 16.10.2019. Hence, the
legal heirs of the 1st respondent/R2 to R6 may be permitted to get the said
amount from the trial Court.
9.Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
respondents filed compounding petition in Crl.M.P.No.9384 of 2023 in
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021 along with joint memo before this Court invoking
Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to compound the offence
and the same is hereby ordered.
10.This Court had an enquiry with both the petitioner and the legal heirs
of the 1st respondent/R2 to R6, who reaffirmed the compromise and filing of
compounding petition before this Court.
11.In view of the above development and in the interest of both the
parties and the issue between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the 1 st
respondent/R2 to R6 is compounded. Hence, the judgment, dated 12.07.2019,
in C.C.No.3743 of 2017, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast
Track Court No.IV, George Town, Chennai and the judgment dated 05.02.2021
passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, FAC VII Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021
Court, Chennai in C.A.No.280 of 2019 are set aside and the revision is,
accordingly, allowed. The petitioner is acquitted of all the charges levelled
against him.
12.As stated above, while the petitioner was granted suspension of
sentence by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, he was ordered to
deposit Rs.80,000/-, that is 20% of the cheque amount, in C.C.No.3743 of 2017
on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.IV, George
Town, Chennai. As per the order, the petitioner deposited the said amount of
Rs.80,000/- in C.C.No.3743 of 2017, vide challan No.161340, dated
16.10.2019.
13.The legal heirs of the 1st respondent/R2 to R6 can file a petition before
the trial Court to receive the said amount. On such filing, the trial Court to
handover the amount to the legal heirs of late Mr.R.Loganathan, namely, R2 to
R6 without further notice to the petitioner. The petitioner who is before this
Court has no objection for the same. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.3283 & 3285 of 2021 in
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021 in are closed.
30.06.2023
vv2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
1.The VI Additional Sessions Judge,
FAC VII Additional Court,
Chennai.
2.The Metropolitan Magistrate,
Fast Track Court No.IV,
George Town, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2021
30.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
