[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Vijayaprabakaran vs State Rep. By on 12 March, 2026
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
Crl.A(MD)No.514 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 12.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.A(MD)No.514 of 2017
Vijayaprabakaran : Appellant
Vs.
1.State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Karur District.
(Cr.No.9 of 2017)
2.xxxx : Respondents
[R.2 impleaded vide order dated 04.08.2025]
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure
Code against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Karur,
in Spl.SC.No.8 of 2017, dated 27.11.2017.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 01:18:46 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.514 of 2017
For Appellant : Mr.Nihar Ali
For Respondents : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for R.1
Mr.R.Venkatesan for R.2
*****
JUDGMENT
This appeal is arising out of a conviction. The appellant is the accused
and by the impugned judgment, he was convicted and sentenced as under:-
● for the offence u/s.341 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, i/d to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one week;
● for the offence u/s.354 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, i/d to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two months;
● for the offence u/s.354(D) IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, i/d to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 01:18:46 pm )
● for the offence u/s.11(i), 11(iv) of POCSO Act, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, i/d to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; and
● for the offence u/s.4 of TNPHW Act, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/-, i/d to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
As against the conviction and sentence, the appellant / accused has filed
the instant criminal appeal.
2.The prosecution case is that on 03.07.2017, at about 09.00 am, the
appellant / accused followed the victim when she was going to the school,
waylaid her, abused her and threatened her that he would share her photos
in the cellphone to others. Hence the complaint.
3.When the appeal is taken up for hearing, the victim / second
respondent has filed an affidavit before this Court that she is married and
living separately and that she is not willing to prosecute the case further.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 01:18:46 pm )
4.Learned Counsel for the appellant / accused submitted that the
parties are relatives and they have amicably settled the issue. He further
submitted that both the parties have parted ways and have subsequently
married separately. The appellant is living with his wife and the second
respondent with her husband.
5.In Shiji @ Pappu & Others v. Radhika & Another [2011 (10) SCC
705], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while hearing an appeal
against conviction, the High Court may not be competent to permit
compounding of an offence, where the nature of offence is non-
compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., but the High Court may set
aside the conviction by exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the facts and circumstances of the case
warrant doing so.
6.The allegation as against this appellant / accused is that he has
grabbed the hands of the victim, who is his relative, that he would marry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 01:18:46 pm )
her. Considering the relationship between the parties, the nature of
allegation and the affidavit now filed by the second respondent, this Court,
in order to give a quietus to the issue, is inclined to interfere with the
judgment of conviction and sentence. However, this Court is of the view
that the second respondent / victim needs to be compensated, for the
harassment faced by her.
7.Resultantly, the conviction and sentence is modified as that of a fine
of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), payable by the appellant /
accused to the second respondent / victim, de hors the fine amount already
paid. Such payment shall be made by the appellant / accused within a
period of two weeks from today.
Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands partly allowed.
Internet : Yes 12.03.2026
gk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 01:18:46 pm )
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge,
Karur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Karur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
12.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 01:18:46 pm )
