Rajinikanth v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Pudukkottai District
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 442
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 294(b), 420, 506(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 320, 482
- Constitution of India art. 142
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 23.01.2025NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet :Yes / Nomkn9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.847 of 2024 P.VADAMALAI, J. mknTo1.The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai 2. The learned Judicial…
Judgment
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.847 of 2024BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 23.01.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAICrl.R.C.(MD)No.847 of 2024andCrl.M.P.(MD)Nos.9293 & 9294 of 2024 Rajinikanth ... PetitionerVs.
State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Pudukkottai District. (Crime No.299 of 2019)
Muthiah @ Kalidass ... Respondents(R2 is impleaded as per order of the Court dated 09.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.344 of 2025 in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.847 of 2024 by PVMJ) PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the judgment 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.847 of 2024dated 11.06.2024 made in C.A.No.57 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai confirming the conviction and sentence, dated 27.03.2023, made in C.C.No.75 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai and set aside the same. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balaji For R1 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.J.Vivek ORDERThe present Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order passed, in C.A.No.57 of 2023, by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, dated 11.06.2024, confirming the conviction and sentence passed, in C.C.No.75 of 2021, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai dated 27.03.2023.2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and his father have received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, from the de-facto complainant, at the rate of 2.5%, on a promise to return the money within a period of three months. The petitioner and his father have paid the interest amount of Rs.2,500/- for three months, thereafter they defaulted. When it was 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.847 of 2024questioned by the de-facto complainant, they abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences. Based on a complaint given by the de-facto complainant, a First Information Report, in Crime No.299 of 2019, came to be registered by the respondent police as against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 294(b), 420 and 506(1) of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.75 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai.
On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. On the side of the accused, 1st accused/the petitioner herein was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D1 was marked.
On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the 1st accused/the petitioner herein guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.847 of 2024Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months, which was also confirmed by the appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed before this Court.
While pending this revision, the petitioner and the de-facto complainant/Muthiah @ Kalidass have amicably settled their issues and also entered into a joint memorandum of compromise dated 16.10.2024. The relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder :1 ? tJ eghplk; 2 ? tJ egh; fle;j
01/12/2018?k; njjp U:/1.00.000-? (U:gha; xU yl; rk; kl; Lk;) n+hl; ly; bjhHpy; bra;a fld; Mf bgw;W mjid jpUk;g juhjjhy; fnzc&; efh; Fw;w vz;/299-2019?y; Fw;w tHf;F bjhlug; gl;L ePjpkd;w tprhuizapy; 2?tJ egh; Fw;wthspahf jPh;khdpf; fg; gl;L. jw; nghJ khz;g[kpF brd; id cah; ePjpkd;w kJiu fpisapy; Crl.R.C.(MD)No.847/ 2024 vd;w vz; zpy; tprhuizapy; cs; sJ/ jw; nghJ 1?tJ eghplk; 2?tJ egh; elj; jpa RK:f ngr; Rthh;j;ijapy; rkurk; Vw;gl;L th';fpa gzj; Jld; ec&;l <lhf nrh;j;J U:/2.00.000- ? (U:gha; ,uz;L yl; rk;) j;ij 2?tJ eghplk; ,Ue;J 1?tJ egh; 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.847 of 2024fPH;f;fz;l rhl; rpfs; Kd;dpiyapy; bgw; Wf; bfhz; lhh;/ 1?tJ eguhy; bjhlug; gl;l Fw;w vz;/299-2019?y; tHf;fpy; ,UtUf;Fk; rkurk; Vw;gl; ljhy; 2?tJ egiu ,t;tHf;fpy; ,Ue;J tpLjiy bra;a kd g{h;t rk; kjk; MFk;/ ,dpnky; ekf; Fs; vt; tpj gpd; bjhlh;r;rpa[k; bfhLf;fy;. th';fYk; ,y;iy vd fPH;fz;l rhl; rpfs; Kd;dpiyapy; ehk; ,UtUk; Vnfhgpj;j kdJld; ahUila Jhz; LjYk; ,d;wp ifbahg; gk; bra;J bfhz; nlhk;/
Therefore, the de-facto complainant has no objection to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below.
In this regard, 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 State of Madhya Pradesh reported in MANU/SC/0728/2021 : 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 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.847 of 2024provisions. 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 copious 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 sum up 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 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.847 of 2024wide 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 para-meters 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 such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.847 of 2024interest; 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 ill-will 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 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.847 of 2024acquittal of the Appellants; more so looking at their present age.”
In view of the above, the judgment made by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai in C.A.No.57 of 2023, dated 11.06.2024 confirming the conviction and sentence made by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai in C.C.No.75 of 2021, dated 27.03.2023 are set aside.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 23.01.2025NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet :Yes / Nomkn9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.847 of 2024 P.VADAMALAI, J. mknTo1.The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai 2. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai3.The Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Pudukkottai District. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.R.C.(MD)No.847 of 2024andCrl.M.P.(MD)Nos.9293 & 9294 of 202423.01.202510/10
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 442; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 294(b), 420, 506(1); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 320, 482; Constitution of India — art. 142.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 23 Jan 2025.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.