J.Rayar v. M.Malar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P(MD)No.4165 of 2020 J.Rayar ... Petitioner/Appellant/Accused Vs.
M.Malar ... Respondent/Respondent/ Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the Judgment dated 17.03.2020 in C.A.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, thereby confirming the Judgment of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, Pudukkottai, dated 20.08.2018 in S.T.C.No.818 of 2014 and convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and to pay compensation of Rs.6,70,000/- and acquit the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondent : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
ORDER
This revision has been filed as against the Judgment dated 17.03.2020 made in C.A.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, thereby confirming the Judgment dated 20.08.2018 in S.T.C.No.818 of 2014 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, Pudukkottai and acquit the petitioner/accused. 2.While pending this revision, the petitioner and the respondent have amicably settled and the petitioner paid the entire cheque amount to the respondent.
3.Today, the petitioner as well as the respondent are present before this Court and the respondent has no objection to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner herein. 4.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 1/4
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 2/4
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 aforesaid, the judgment dated 17.03.2020 made in C.A.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, thereby confirming the Judgment dated 20.08.2018 in S.T.C.No.818 of 2014 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, Pudukkottai are set aside.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ps 3/4
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To 1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai District.
2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, Pudukkottai.
Copy to:
The Section officer, Criminal Records, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai. (2 COPIES) 04.04.2022 RD(20.04.2022) 4P 5C 4/4