N.Babu, M/A 43 Years, v. K.Sellamuthu, M/A 52 Years,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN N.Babu ....
Petitioner Vs K.Sellamuthu ....
Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.308 of 2017 dated 20.04.2018, pending on the file of the II Additional District Sessions Court, Erode, dated 20.04.2018, confirming the Judgment passed in S.T.C.No.150 of 2015 dated 14.11.2017 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi.
For Petitioner : M/s.N.Umapathi For Respondent : Mr.M.Karthik For Mr.I.C.Vasudevan
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 20.04.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.308 of 2017 on the file of
the II Additional District Sessions Court, Erode, thereby confirming the Judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed in S.T.C.No.150 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that pending revision, the parties have entered into a compromise and the petitioner had settled the entire cheque amount. They also entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise and produced before this Court.
3. A Joint memo of Compromise dated 14.10.2022, is extracted hereunder, "The petitioner further submits that as per the compromise made by the well-wishers of both the petitioner and the respondent the above matter is settled out of court. In fact, the total amount of subject matter cheque is Rs.4,00,000/- The respondent received the full cheque amount i.e., Rs.4,00,000/- from the petitioner in cash on 09.10.2022. With the above transaction compromise has been arrived between the parties."
4. 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 sublime 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.
5. In view of the above, the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.308 of 2017 dated 20.04.2018, pending on the file of the II Additional District Sessions Court, Erode, dated 20.04.2018 and the order passed in S.T.C.No.150 of 2015 dated 14.11.2017 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi. are hereby set aside and the terms of Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 14.10.2022, shall form part and parcel of this Order.
6. However, the respondent is directed to withdraw the amount, which was already deposited before the Trial Court, by filing an appropriate application. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall permit the respondent to withdraw the amount, without ordering notice to the petitioner herein.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. 20.10.2022 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Lpp
To
1. The II Additional District Sessions Court, Erode.
2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, Lpp 20.10.2022