Madras High Court
Ramachandran vs A.C.Venkatachalam on 1 October, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
Crl.RC.SR.No.19991 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.RC.SR.No.19991 of 2024
and
Crl.MP.No.13481 of 2024
Ramachandran ...Petitioner
Vs.
A.C.Venkatachalam ...Respondent
Prayer in Crl.R.C.SR.No.19991 of 2024: Criminal Revision Case filed
under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the
judgment dated 18.11.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.50 of 2020 on the file of
the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Namakkal, confirming the
conviction and sentence of one year simple imprisonment and to pay
compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., r/w. Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in default of payment of
compensation, to undergo a further period of one month simple
imprisonment as default sentence imposed by the judgment dated
17.03.2020 in S.T.C.No.40 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thiruchengode and set aside the same and
acquit the petitioner herein.
Prayer in Crl.M.P.No.13481 of 2024: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
filed under Section 528 of BNS, to recall the order dated 09.07.2024
made in Crl.M.P.No.7392 of 2024 in Crl.R.C.SR.No.19991 of 2024
passed by this Court.
Page No.1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.SR.No.19991 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.A.M.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vijayakumar
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed seeking quashment of
the order dated 18.11.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.50 of 2020 on the file of
the Additional District Sessions Judge, Namakkal, confirming the order
passed in STC.No.40 of 2017 dated 17.03.2020 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thiruchengode.
2. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the de-facto
complainant. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter
referred to as 'accused' and 'complainant'.
3. The complainant initiated proceedings u/s 138 and 142 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'the N.I. Act') in STCNo.40 of 2017
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thiruchengode
against the accused stating that the accused borrowed a sum of
Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant and the accused issued one post
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated Cheque bearing No.003747 dated 16.03.2016 for a sum of
Rs.9,00,000/-. When the Cheque was presented for collection on
30.03.2016, the same was returned with an Endorsement 'Funds
insufficient'. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused
on 18.04.2016 and the accused has issued a reply notice narrating false
averments. Therefore, the complainant has filed the complaint.
4. After elaborate discussions, the trial court convicted the
accused u/s. 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- to
the complainant, in default of payment of compensation, the accused
shall undergo further period of one month simple imprisonment.
Challenging the same, the accused has filed an appeal in
Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2020 before the learned Additional District
Sessions Judge, Namakkal and the learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment
dated 18.11.2022, dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court,
Thiruchengode. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the
pendancy of this revision, the petitioner and the respondent arrived at a
compromise for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and are ready to settle the case
amicably and the respondent has consented for receiving a sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- and compounding the offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and a
Deed of Compromise has also been filed to that effect.
6. Mr.A.C.Venkatachalam /the complainant, Party-in-person
appeared before this Court and agreed to receive a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-
and has no objection for compounding the offence.
7. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
useful to extract hereunder paragraphs 16 and 17:
''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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 of
the cheque.''
8. With the above principles in mind, if this Court see the present
case, it is only a money transaction and the petitioner and the respondent
arrived at a compromise for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and the respondent
has consented for receiving a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and compounding the
offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. 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 N.I. Act also empowers this
Court to compound the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act.
9. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India and also considering the fact that the respondent has agreed to
receive a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and he has no objection for compounding
the offence, this Court is of the view that the Judgment in
Crl.A.No.50 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge,
Namakkal, is liable to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
revision petitioner/accused in S.T.C.No.40 of 2017 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thiruchengode, vide
judgment dated 17.03.2020, which was confirmed in
Crl.A.No.50 of 2020 by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge,
Namakkal, vide judgment dated 18.11.2022, is set aside and the revision
petitioner/ accused is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him
and is ordered to be released forthwith.
11. This Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of at the
SR stage accordingly. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition
is closed.
01.10.2024
ssb
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
Note: Issue order copy on 03.10.2024.
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1. The learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Namakkal.
2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thiruchengode.
3.The Central Prison, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
ssb
and
01.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
