CRL.A.(MD).No.289 of 2022

Bail slip

The Petitioner/Sole Accused viz Sankar was released on bail in

Crl.MP(MD)No.4957 of 2022 in Crl.A(MD)No.289 of 2022 dated

20.04.2022 order of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 29.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

CRL.A.(MD).No.289 of 2022

Sankar

... Appellant/Sole Accused

Vs.

The Inspector of Police,

Melapalayam Police Station,

Tirunelveli City,

Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.503 of 2017).

... Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 374(2) of

Cr.P.C to call for the records in Special S.C.No.40 of 2019, dated

14.03.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for

Exclusive Trial of Cases under POSCO Act, Tirunelveli and to set

aside the same.

For Appellant

: Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus

For Respondent

: Ms.M.Aasha

Government Advocate (crl.side)

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the order

passed in Special S.C.No.40 of 2019, dated 14.03.2022 on the file of

the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of

Cases under POSCO Act, Tirunelveli.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

that pending the appeal, the appellant and the father of the victim

girl have amicably settled the issue and filed a compromise memo.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also

confirmed the same.

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

State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2021 (6) CTC 240 and the

relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-

1/4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

CRL.A.(MD).No.289 of 2022

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 i