Madras High Court
CRL A/184/2022 of MANIKANDAN Vs STATE REP BY on 17 September 2026
CRL A No. 184 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL A No. 184 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA011395182019}
Manikandan
..Appellant
Vs
1. The State Represented By
Inspector Of Police, District Crime Branch, Villupuram Cr.No.28/2011
2. R.Siva
..Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, in Criminal Appeal No.11
of 2016 dated 30.08.2016, reversing the conviction and sentence order by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee in C.C.No.129 of 2013 dated 15.02.2016.
For Appellant:
Mr. E. Santhosh Kumar for
Mr. N. Suresh
For Respondents:
Ms. Sharada Vivek,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Mr.M.Ilansezhiyan for R2
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:27 pm )
CRL A No. 184 of 2022
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.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2016 dated 30.08.2016, reversing the conviction and sentence ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee in C.C.No.129 of 2013 dated 15.02.2016.
2. The case of the appellant is that the appellant is the de facto complainant, who had lodged a complaint before the first respondent, based on which a case in Crime No.28 of 2011 was registered. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet filed, which was taken on file as C.C.No.129 of 2013. The trial Court, by its judgment dated 15.02.2016, convicted the 2nd respondent for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.500/-, for the offences under Section 465 and 468 of IPC, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.100/-, and for the offences under Sections 467 and 471 of the IPC, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.400/-. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the 2nd respondent preferred an appeal before the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tindivanam in Crl.A.No.11 of
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:27 pm )
CRL A No. 184 of 2022
2016. The lower appellate Court, by its judgment dated 30.08.2016, allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, against which the present appeal has been preferred.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had filed a memo stating that the issue had been amicably resolved between the appellant and the 2nd respondent. As regards the facts of the case, it is submitted that the appellant was working as Secretary of Devadanampet Village Panchayat from 27.12.1999. The Panchayat President namely, Pallandu, had made unreasonable demands to the appellant, which the appellant refused to comply with. Thereafter, the Panchayat President did not permit the appellant to work in the office from August 2003. It is further submitted that the said Pallandu has forged Page Nos.60, 61, 96 and 97 of the resolution book, inserting a resolution as if the complainant had been terminated from service and via another resolution, appointed the 2nd respondent as the Secretary. Consequently, a complaint was lodged, a charge sheet was filed, and the 2nd respondent was convicted by the trial Court. However, the lower appellate Court has acquitted him of all the charges.
4. Finding that the 2nd respondent was not a reason for ousting the appellant from service or for the fabrication of documents, the appellant has agreed to compound the offences, though the offences are non-compoundable
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:27 pm )
CRL A No. 184 of 2022
and withdraw the present appeal. Upon the filing of the memo dated 09.09.2026, this Court, by an order dated 10.09.2026, directed the first respondent to verify the contents of the memo and also to examine both the appellant and the 2nd respondent.
5. Today, the appellant and the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court and they been identified by G.Muralikrishnan, Special Sub Inspector, District Crime Branch, Villupuram. Both parties confirm that the matter has been fully resolved, and the appellant reiterated his willingness to withdraw the appeal. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, nothing survives for further adjudication.
6. Recording the aforesaid settlement and the memo filed by the appellant, this criminal appeal is disposed of, thereby confirming the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the 2nd respondent. 17-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No JD
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:27 pm )
CRL A No. 184 of 2022
To
1. 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam.
2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee
2. The Inspector Of Police, District Crime Branch, Villupuram
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:27 pm )
CRL A No. 184 of 2022
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. JD CRL A No. 184 of 2022 17-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:27 pm )