CRL RC(MD)/969/2019 of R. Senthilkumar Vs Kaliappan on 30 December 2019

Relief

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 30.12.2019

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI

Crl.RC(MD)No.969 of 2019

andCrl.MP(MD)No.11459 of 2019

R.Senthilkumar : Petitioner/Appellant/ Sole Accused Sole Accused

Vs.

S.Kaliappan : Respondent/Respondent/ Complainant Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401 ofCode of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed in STC No.115of 2016 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I (Fast Track Court atMagisterial Level), Madurai, dated 19.08.2017, which was confirmedby the 6[th] Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, in Crl.ANo.179 of 2017, dated 25.09.2018.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Aarumugam

For Respondent : Mr.P.Karthick

This criminal revision is directed against the judgmentpassed in STC No.115 of 2016 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I (FastTrack Court at Magisterial Level), Madurai, dated 19.08.2017, whichwas confirmed by the 6[th] Additional District and Sessions Judge,Madurai, in Crl.A No.179 of 2017, dated 25.09.2018.

2. According to the respondent/complainant, the revisionpetitioner/accused obtained a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as loan from himon 04.08.2015 and in order to discharge the said liability, issued acheque No.252183 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, dated 07.09.2015 andwhen the same was presented for collection, it was returned with anendorsement “Funds Insufficient” on 15.09.2015 and thereafter, thecomplainant issued a legal notice on 29.09.2015, however, there isno response. Hence, the case.

3. The trial court, after proper appreciation of the entirehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/materials available on record, found the accused guilty under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him toundergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a compensationof Rs.2,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, theaccused preferred appeal before the first appellate court. The firstappellate court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of thetrial court. Against which, the revision petitioner/accused isbefore this court.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for therevision petitioner/accused that the revision petitioner/accused isin Central Prison, Madurai and now, the dispute between the partieshas been settled amicably. The learned counsel appearing for therespondent has not disputed the above fact.

5. This court, by order, dated 20.12.2019, directed theSuperintendent, Central Prison, Madurai to produce the revisionpetitioner/accused before this court, on 30.12.2019 so as to settlethe dispute between the parties.

6. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the revisionpetitioner/accused produced before this court. The respondent ispresent. The learned counsels appearing for both sides are alsopresent and a Joint Memorandum of Compromise, dated 30.12.2019filed stating that the dispute between the parties has been settledamicably.

7. The Joint Compromise Memo, dated 30.12.2019 would run thus:- “The revision petitioner has agreed to pay asum of Rs.2,00,000/- against the said cheque amountand I had also received the same towards full andfinal settlement for the amount payable by thepetitioner herein.

Hence, it is just and necessary that thisHon'ble Court may be pleased to record thecompromise entered into between the petitioner andthe respondent towards cheque which are the subjectmatter of the criminal revision before this court.”

8. Keeping in view of the above fact, since offence undersection 138 of the Act can be compounded at any stage of theproceedings and now, the matter has been amicably settled betweenthe parties, the parties are allowed to compound the offence and therevision petitioner be acquitted of the charge(s) convicted againsthim and the compensation awarded by the trial court is set aside.

9. In the light of compromise entered into between theparties, this Criminal Revision is disposed of. The revisionpetitioner/accused is directed to be released forthwith, unless hishttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

detention is required in connection with any other case. The JointCompromise Memo, dated 30.12.2019 shall form part of the order.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

// True Copy //

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

Encl:Xerox Copy of Joint Compromise Memo. erTo1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I (Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level), Madurai.2.The 6[th] Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.S.SARVAGAN PRABHU, Advocate ( SR-106532[F] dated30/12/2019 )

Crl.RC(MD)No.969 of 201930.12.2019

KK/SAR/30.12.2019/3P-5C/