Madras High Court
CRL RC/1989/2026 of Dron(Minor) Vs Govini Sathishkumar on 30 September 2026
CRL RC No. 1989 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 1989 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011533132026}
Dr.C.R.Devender
S/o.C.Ramakrishna
(Through his legal Representatives)
1. Dron(Minor)
S/o Late.C.R.Devender,
Minor Rep. by Mother Indu Chauhan.
2. Yashika(Minor)
D/o Late C.R.Devender,
Minor Rep. by Mother Indu Chauhan,
3. Indu Chauhan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Govini Sathishkumar
Represented by his Power Agent
Govini Balasubramani
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: The Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442
BNSS, to set aside the order dt.09.03.2026 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track court, Alandur in Crl.MP.No.125 of 2026 in CC.No.575
of 2016 in issuance of Warrant directing and authorizing the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Shimla Himachal Pradesh to realize the fine amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- as arrears of land revenue from the attachment and sale of the leasehold rights over the property situated at Khasra at No.971,Village Kog, Pargana Kogi, Tehsil Shimla(Rural), District Shimla Himachal Pradesh.
( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )
CRL RC No. 1989 of 2026
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Praveen Alexander
For Respondent(s):
Mr.Ralph V.Manohar
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The Revision assails the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.125 of 2026 in CC.No.575 of 2016.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the above revision are as follows; The father of the first two petitioners and the husband of the third petitioner one C.R.Devender was prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act in CC.No.575 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Alandur. He was found guilty of the offence and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,00,000/- being the cheque amount. The said C.R.Devender challenged the Judgment of conviction and sentence before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. The appellate Court confirmed the finding of guilt and sentence.
3. At this stage, it appears that the respondent/complainant came to know that the said C.R.Devender died and hence, for recovery of fine, he filed Crl.MP.No.125 of 2026 before the learned Magistrate.
( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )
CRL RC No. 1989 of 2026
4. The learned Magistrate had issued notice to the petitioners and since they had not appeared, in spite of notice, the learned Magistrate proceeded to decide the case on merits. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate directed the attachment of a property at No.971, Village Kog, Pargana Kogi, Tensil Shimla (Rural), District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh – 171 012, in which, the said C.R.Devender had a lease hold right for 99 years.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that two of the petitioners are minors; that their property cannot be attached; that the lease hold right cannot be subjected to attachment; and prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent however, would submit that it is not a case where the minors had a share by birth and that the deceased had the lease hold right and the said right was for a period of 99 years. He pointed out to the terms of the deed, which confers a right to the lessee to transfer the lease hold right by sub-lease or assignment and therefore, would submit that the impugned order does not call for any interference.
7. Admittedly, C.R.Devender was convicted by the trial Court and his conviction and sentence was confirmed by the appellate Court. There is no challenge to the finding of guilt and sentence imposed by the Courts below. The
( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )
CRL RC No. 1989 of 2026
said C.R.Devender was directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Section 70 of IPC makes it clear that the death of the offender does not discharge him from the liability in property, which would, after his death, be legally liable for his debts. Similarly, Section 421(b) of Cr.P.C., permits the collection of fine by realising as arrears of land revenue.
8. As regards the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the property of the minor petitioners cannot be attached, in view of Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code, the fine can be levied and recovered even after the death of the offender. The death of the offender does not discharge from the liability on any property, which would, after his death, be legally liable for his debts. Admittedly, the property belonged to the deceased accused C.R.Devender. As could be seen from the lease deed, the lease is for a period of 99 years and the lessee has power to sublease or assign the lease hold right in favour of any third party. In view of the specific power conferred in the lease deed to transfer the property, this Court finds no infirmity in ordering the attachment of the said lease hold right.
9. Hence, Revision is dismissed. 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG
( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )
CRL RC No. 1989 of 2026
To The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track court, Alandur
( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )
CRL RC No. 1989 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL RC No. 1989 of 2026 30-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )