Dheeba v. M/S.Kovai Maruthi Paper And Boards (P) Ltd.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Tenth day of December Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.12829 of 2021 IN CRL RC.440 of 2020 DHEEBA [ PETITIONER / RESPONDENT / ACCUSED ] Vs M/S.KOVAI MARUTHI PAPER AND BOARDS (P) LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, REP.BY ITS, EXECUTIVE COMMERCIAL, MR.SHANMUGASUNDARAM, [ RESPONDENT / PETITIONER / COMPLAINANT ] Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to order that the present matter Criminal Revision petition in Crl. R.C.No.440 of 2020 against Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2019 in STC No.

266 of 2016 may be compounded and such further or other orders Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.R.KARUNAGARAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and of M/S.A.PADMANABAN, on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:- (This case has been heard through video conference) Heard the learned counsel for the respondent and the respondent/complainant. Mr.R.Karunagaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the petitioner/accused are present through video conferencing.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the husband of the petitioner was running a proprietary business in the name of Mahalakshmi Packaging Industries. During the course of business, the respondent/complainant had supplied the kraft papers to the firm run by the husband of the petitioner and in respect of out

standing amount of Rs.18,46,415/- (Rupees Eighteen lakhs forty six thousand four hundred and fifteen only), the petitioner had issued two cheques bearing Cheque No.000369 for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- and another Cheque No.000370 for a sum of Rs.9,46,415/-, from her individual/personal account. Due to the loss in the business, the husband of the petitioner was unable to honour the cheques. Thereby, the respondent/complainant had filed a private complaint in S.T.C.No.266 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court had acquitted the petitioner, as against the order of acquittal, the Respondent/complainant had preferred C.A.No.46 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions and District Judge, Namakkal and the Appellate Court allowed the Appeal by an order dated 13.01.

2020 reversed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi and found the petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.18,46,415/- in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment and the fine amount was directed to be paid to the respondent/complainant as compensation. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the Crl.R.C.No.440 of 2020.

3. The learned counsel would further submit that unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner passed away on 02.03.2020. Meanwhile, due to the intervention of well wishers known to the parties, a compromise has been effected and the respondent was benevolent enough to settle the case accepting Rupees Ten Lakhs towards full quit and both the parties entered into a compromise, based on which they have agreed to compound the offence and have filed the petition for compounding before this Court.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that as per the judgment in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663, the petitioner has to pay 15% of the cheque amount towards costs. However, in this case, the trial Court had acquitted the petitioner and the appellate Court had found her guilty. The petitioner is only a housewife and due to severe loss in the business her husband fell sick and passed away on 02.03.2020, taking into consideration that the petitioner is a widow and that she is not directly involved in the business, the respondent had agreed for the settlement. The petitioner being a widow with great difficulty had arrange for funds and she has no means to pay any other additional amount as costs. The learned counsel would further pray that the present position of the petitioner may be taken as a special case and that payment of cost may be waived and the parties may be permitted to compound the offence.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner was not directly involved in the business and that she was acquitted by the trial Court and her husband passed away and she being a widow, the payment of cost is waived.

6. In view of the above, the offence stands compounded under Section 147 of the N.I. Act and the judgment passed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.46 of 2019 dated 13.01.2020 is set aside and the accused is acquitted. Fine amount if any, paid by the accused shall be forfeited and credited to the account of Legal Services Authority attached to the concerned trial Court. Bail bond, if any executed by her shall stand cancelled. Registry is directed to transmit the original records if any, to the Court concerned forthwith.

7. In the result, this Crl.M.P.No.12829 of 2021 stands ordered as prayed for.

-sd/- 10/12/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NAMAKKAL.

2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PARAMATHI.

3 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NAMAKKAL [FOR INFORMATION].

4 THE SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

5 THE SECTION OFFFICER CRIMINAL SECTION, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

C.C. to M/S. R.KARUNAGARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges Order in CRL MP.12829/2021 in CRL RC.440/2020 Date :10/12/2021 From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format JPA 04/01/2022