Ramasamy v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.02.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.No.16076 of 2014 and Crl.M.P.No.1 & 2 of 2014 1.Ramasamy 2.Mani 3.Vasu 4.Jayapal 5.Thangadurai 6.Ayyanar 7.Jayaraj 8.Venkatajalam 9.Palanisamy 10.Selvam 11.Mani 12.Kunjupaiyan 13.Mani @ D.Driver Mani 14.Kandan 15.Samivel 16.Raja 17.Sekar 18.Paramasivam 19.Allimuthu 20.Nagaraj 21.Gopalakannan 22.Ravi 23.Thalaiyappan 24.Kumar 25.Krishnan 26.Elumalai 27.Velu 28.Kaveri 29.Devendiran 30.Kumar 31.Murugesan 32.Balu 33.Sakthi Murugan 34.Kumar 35.Ellappan 36.Perumal 37.Murugan

38.Mani 39.Appadurai 40.Govindaraj 41.Venkatesh 42.Renganathan 43.Pootha Gounder 44.Subramani 45.Thangavel 46.Raja 47.Kanapathy 48.Kanniappan

...Petitioners

Vs.

1.State represented by The Inspecor of Police, Tholasampatti Police Station, Salem District.

(Crime No.102/2006).

2.V.P.Ramu (Impleaded the 2nd respondent as per the order of this Court dated 08.07.2014 in M.P.No.2/2014.)

...Respondents

Prayer:

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records in P.R.C.No.22/2007 on the file of the learned District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Omalur and quash the same.

For Petitioners :

Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For R1 :

Mr.C.Iyyaparaj Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 :

Mr.M.R.Jothimanian

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in P.R.C.No.22/2007 on the file of the learned District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Omalur and quash the same.

2. It appears that due to election dispute, there was attack and counter attack and a case was registered in Crime No.102 of 2006 dated 19.10.2006 against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 307 of I.P.C. and 3 of PPD Act in P.R.C.No.22 of 2007 on the file of learned District

Munsiff Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Omalur. 3.Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the petitioners and the defacto complainant hail from the same village and in order to maintain the peace and tranquillity, the residents of the villagers and the petitioners and defacto complainant have decided to bury their disputes and thereby, the petitioners and the defacto complainant entered into a compromise and to that effect, a joint memorandum of compromise has also been filed. Therefore, he would submit that in view of the compromise, the criminal proceedings in PRC No.22 of 2007 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Omalur pending against the petitioners, may be quashed.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in order to identify the parties, both the parties have appeared and on confirmation of the compromise, he reported no objection.

5. 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 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 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.''

6.Therefore, in view of the compromise entered between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, this Court is of the view that there would be no prejudice being caused to the defacto complainant if the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners are quashed since the defacto complainant/2nd respondent herein on whose complaint, the criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, is also a signatory to the joint memo filed before this Court, wherein it is urged that after recording the compromise, the petitioners may be discharged.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in P.R.C.No.22/2007 on the file of the learned District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Omalur are hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gbi

To 1.The Inspecor of Police, Tholasampatti Police Station, Salem District.

2.The District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Omalur.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

+1cc to Mr.R.Sankara Subbu, Advocate, S.R.No.15605 Crl.O.P.No.16076 of 2014 and Crl.M.P.No.1 & 2 of 2014 RSK(CO) RN(30/05/2020)