Madras High Court
Sekar vs Arun on 2 January, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.2104 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.2104 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.No.20124 of 2023
Sekar ... Petitioner
Vs.
Arun ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the judgment
dated 31.10.2023 passed in C.A.No.02 of 2023 on the file of the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore confirming the judgment dated
12.12.2022 passed in STC.No.748 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.Raja
For Respondent : Mr.V.Mukeshkumar
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.2104 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioner was convicted by judgment, dated 12.12.2022 in
S.T.C.No.748 of 2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore
for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
sentenced to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a
compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- to the respondent in default, to undergo three
months Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved over the judgment of the trial
Court, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in C.A.No.02 of 2023. The learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 31.10.2023
dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of the trial Court, against
which the present revision.
2.The gist of the case is that the petitioner approached the respondent
and borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- for his family expenses. In discharge
of said liability, he issued a cheque dated 13.02.2019 for Rs.7,00,000/-.
When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the reason 'Insufficient Funds'. After following the statutory conditions,
complaint was filed by the respondent.
3.During trial, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1, Bank
Manager as P.W.2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the side of the
petitioner, he examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D1. The trial
Court on conclusion of trial found the petitioner guilty and convicted him as
stated above.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
had not borrowed such huge amount from the respondent/complainant. He
would submit that the respondent is total stranger to him and for some other
dispute, with the aid of the Police the cheque was forcibly taken which
thereafter landed in the hands of the respondent and a false case was foisted
against him. But the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court
failed to consider the same despite the petitioner probabilizing his defence.
5.Though very many grounds have been raised by the petitioner, since
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
he is a Teacher employed in a Government School and not to further
complicate the issues, the petitioner arrived at a settlement with the
respondent/complainant and now the issue between them had been resolved.
The respondent who is present before this Court also admits about the
compromise and further submits that he received a sum of Rs.4,66,666/-
from the petitioner. Further, this Court by order dated 08.12.2023 in
Crl.M.P.No.19232 of 2023 suspended the sentence imposed on the
petitioner on condition that the petitioner deposit 1/3rd of Rs.7,00,000/-. In
compliance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner had already
deposited a sum of Rs.2,33,334/- to the credit of S.T.C.No.748 of 2019
before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore and the same is
confirmed by the respondent/complainant.
6.The respondent has filed compounding petition along with
affidavits before this Court in Crl.M.P.No.20124 of 2023 in
Crl.R.C.No.2104 of 2023 invoking Section 147 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 to compound the offence and the same is ordered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.This Court had an enquiry with both the petitioner and the
respondent. The respondent reaffirmed the compromise entered with the
petitioner.
8.In view of the compromise entered between the petitioner and the
respondent, the case between the petitioner and the respondent is
compounded. Hence, the judgment, dated 12.12.2022 in S.T.C.No.748
2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore and the
judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in C.A.No.02 of 2023 are set aside and the
revision is, accordingly, allowed. The petitioner is acquitted of all the
charges levelled against him.
9.It is made clear that it is only a dispute with regard to borrowing of
money and the manner in which the cheque has been presented and by force
collection has been made. Since this Court compounded the offence
discharged the petitioner from all offences, no adversity of the above case
can be quoted against the petitioner in any manner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.Further, the respondent/complainant is at liberty to withdraw the
amount of Rs.2,33,334/- lying to the credit of S.T.C.No.748 of 2019 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore and the Lower Court
can dispense with notice to the petitioner/accused.
02.01.2024
cse
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Cuddalore.
2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
02.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
