Madras High Court
R.Rajendran vs The State on 1 August, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
Crl.RC.No.461 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.RC.No.461 of 2022
R.Rajendran ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State,
Rep. by the Public Prosecutor,
Coimbatore.
2. M/s. Rashi Peripherals Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorized Representative and
Area Sales Manager Mr.John Cecil Christopher,
Having registered Office at Aristo House,
5th Floor, Corner of Telli Galli, Andheri(East),
Mumbai – 400 069 and Branch Office at
No.35, Bharathi Park,
8th Cross, Saibaba Colony, Coimbatore – 641 011. ...Respondents
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the records in respect of the impugned order dated 25.10.2021 of
the Hon'ble IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Coimbatore in
Crl.A.No.152 of 2019 dismissing the appeal and consequentially confirming
the judgment dated 04.03.2019 of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court
(Magisterial Level-II) at Coimbatore in CC.No.146 of 2016 and set aside the
same and allow the revision petition.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.461 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate(Crl. Side), for R1
: Mr.B.Mohan, for R2
ORDER
This Criminal revision has been filed seeking quashment of the order
dated 25.10.2021 passed in Crl.A.No.152 of 2019 on the file of the IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the
judgment dated 04.03.2019 made in CC.No.146 of 2016 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level-II) at Coimbatore.
2. The petitioner is the accused and the 2nd respondent is the
complainant. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter
referred to as 'accused' and 'complainant'.
3. The complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act in CC.No.146 of 2016 before the Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level-II) at Coimbatore, against
the accused alleging that the complainant is a company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 and it is a distributor of Samsung Mobile Phones and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the accused being a retail seller, purchased Samsung Mobile Phones from
the complainant on credit basis and as on 25.05.2015, the amount due to the
complainant from the accused is Rs.12,12,408/-, which was also confirmed
by the accused himself. Towards discharge of the said liability, the accused
issued a cheque bearing No.313283 dated 25.05.2015 for a sum of
Rs.12,12,408/- and when the said Cheque was presented for collection, the
same was returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Thereby, the
complainant issued legal notice dated 05.06.2015 and despite receiving the
same on 16.06.2015, the accused failed to discharge the above said liability.
Hence, the above complaint.
4. After elaborate discussions, the trial Court convicted the accused/
petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and
the accused was ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.12,12,408/- with
interest @ 6% per annum and in default to undergo further one month of
simple imprisonment. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in
Crl.A.No.152 of 2019 and the learned IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Coimbatore, vide order dated 25.10.2021, dismissed the appeal and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved
by the same, the present revision has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the
pendency of this revision, the petitioner/accused and the 2 nd respondent/
complainant arrived at a compromise and the petitioner paid the entire
compensation amount of Rs.12,12,408/- to the 2nd respondent. The learned
counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant also ratifies the same
and the 2nd respondent/complainant has consented for compounding the
offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and filed a compromise memo dated
31.07.2024 to that effect before this Court today.
6. In the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Syed Babalal H.,
reported in [2010 (5) SCC 663], the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that where the offences are essentially of a private nature and
relatively not quite serious, the Code considers it expedient to recognise
some of them as compoundable offencs and some others are compoundable
only with the permission of the Court. In this regard, it is useful to extract
hereunder paragraphs 16 and 17:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
''16. It is evident that the permissibility of the
compounding of an offence is linked to the perceived
seriousness of the offence and the nature of the remedy
provided. On this point we can refer to the following extracts
from an academic commentary [cited from : K.N.C. Pillai,
R.V.Kelkar's Criminal Procedure, Fifth Edn. (Lucknow:
Eastern Book Company, 2008) at p.444]
''17.2. Compounding of offences .-- A
crime is essentially a wrong against the society
and the State. Therefore any compromise
between the accused person and the individual
victim of the crime should not absolve the
accused from criminal responsibility. However,
where the offences are essentially of a private
nature and relatively not quite serious, the Code
considers it expedient to recognise some of them
as compoundable offences and some others as
compoundable only with the permission of the
Court.''
17. In a recently published commentary, the following
observations have been made with regard to the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Act [cited from : Arun
Mohan, some thoughts towards law reforms on the topic of
Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act – Trackling an
avalanche of cases (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co.
Pvt. Ltd., 2009) at p.5]:
''...Unlike that for other forms of crime, the
punishment here (insofar as the complainant is
concerned) is not a means of seeking retribution,
but is more a means to ensure payment of money.
The complainant's interest likes primarily in
recovering the money rather than seeking the
drawer of the cheque in jail. The threat of jail is
only a mode to ensure recovery. As against the
accused who is willing to undergo a jail term,
there is little available as remedy for the holder
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the cheque.''
7. With the above principles in mind, if this Court see the present
case, it is only a money transaction and the petitioner has already paid the
entire cheque amount of Rs.12,12,408/- to the 2nd respondent and in this
regard a memo of compromise has also been jointly filed by the accused and
the complainant. Therefore, the complainant's interest lies primarily in
recovering the money rather than seeking the drawer of the cheque in jail.
Further Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act also empowers this
Court to compound the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
8. In view of the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of
India and also considering the memo of compromise filed by the parties, this
Court is of the view that the Judgment in CC.No.146 of 2016 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level-II) at
Coimbatore is liable to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner/accused in CC.No.146 of 2016 dated 04.03.2019 on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level-II) at Coimbatore
which was confirmed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.A.No.152 of 2019 dated 25.10.2021 are set aside
and this criminal revision is allowed. The revision petitioner/accused is
acquitted from all the charges levelled against him.
10. This Criminal revision case is accordingly allowed in terms of
compromise. The joint memo of compromise dated 31.07.2024 filed by the
parties before this Court today shall form a part and parcel of this order.
01.08.2024
skt
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
Index : Yes/ No
Internet : Yes/ No
To
1. The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level-II),
Coimbatore.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
High Court of Madras.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
skt
01.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
