R.Murthiy, Age 45, v. Baskaran, Age 45,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN R.Murthy ... Petitioner Vs.

Baskaran ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to set aside order passed by the II Additional Session Court, Erode, in C.A.No.36 of 2018 dated 07.07.2018 and District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Kodumudi in C.C.No.444 of 2016 dated 27.12.2017 and allow this Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Karthikeyan For Respondent : No appearance

ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed as against the Judgment passed in C.A.No.36 of 2018 dated 07.07.2018 by the learned II Additional Session Court, Erode, by confirming the order passed in C.C.No.444 of 2016 dated 27.12.2017 by the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Kodumudi, thereby convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pending revision, parties have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues. They have also produced an Affidavit dated 18.11.2022 and a Joint memo of Compromise, dated 21.11.2022 before this Court.

3. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramgopal and others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2021 (6) CTC 240 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:- "18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that the plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice

system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.

19. We thus sumup and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.

20. Having appraised the aforestated parameters and weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the two appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke powers under Article 142 and quash the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction in both the appeals. We say so for the reasons that: Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can be categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature;

Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the Appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest; Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had been concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction stand dismissed; Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute(s); Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took place way back in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is nothing on record to evince that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident transpired between the parties;

Sixthly, since the Appellants and the complainant(s) are residents of the same village(s) and/or work in close vicinity, the quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony, and fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to forget and forgive any illwill and have no vengeance against each other; and Seventhly, the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain uneffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant acquittal of the Appellants; more so looking at their present age.

4. In view of the above, the Judgment passed in C.A.No.36 of 2018 dated 07.07.2018 by the learned II Additional Session Court, Erode, by confirming the order passed in C.C.No.444 of 2016 dated 27.12.2017 by the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Kodumudi, are hereby set aside and the Affidavit dated 18.11.2022 and the terms of Joint memo of Compromise, dated 21.11.2022, shall form part and parcel of this Order.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case stands allowed. 21.11.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order mn

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn To 1.The II Additional Session Court, Erode.

2.The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Kodumudi. 21.11.2022