Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18971 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 22.12.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18971 of 2021

1.Ranjith Kumar @ Sornakumar

2.Gandhi @ Muthukumarasamy

3.Meena Kumar

4.Rabi @ Ravirajpandiyan

5.Duraipandi @ Duraipandiyan

6.Mokkiah @ Ganesan

7.Chelladurai @ Perumal ... Petitioners/

Accused No.1 to 7

Vs.

1.The State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

Coutrallam Police Station,

Tenkasi District.

(Crime No.421 of 2008) ...1^st Respondent/

Complainant

2.Sukumar

... 2^nd Respondent/

Defacto Complainant

3.Selvakumar

4.Esakki

5.Ramasamy

6.Easkki

7.Kali

... Respondents 3 to 7

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C., to direct the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Tirunelveli, to permit the petitioners and the respondent Nos.2 to 7

herein to compound the case in C.A.No.98 of 2019 pending on the file

of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and

consequently, acquit the petitioners from the conviction and

sentence in SC No.251 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Tenkasi.

For Petitioners

: Mr.N.Mohideen Basha

For Respondents : Mr.Albert James

Government Advocate (Crl.) for R.1

Mr.A.Mohamed Hashim for R.2 to R7

1/3

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18971 of 2021

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and

the learned counsel for the second respondent.

2. The petitioners figured as accused in S.C.No.251 of 2009 on

the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenkasi.

After trial, the learned trial Judge, by judgment, dated 04.09.2019

found them guilty and also sentenced them to various terms of

imprisonment. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed C.A.No.98

of 2018 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Tirunelveli. During the pendency of the appeal, the accused and the

victims buried the hatchet. The parties wanted to compound the

matter. The learned Sessions Judge felt that it may not be open to

him to grant the said relief. In these circumstances, this Criminal

Original Petition came to be filed.

3. Before me, all the victims, the defacto complainant as well

as the other victims appeared in person. The petitioners also appear

before me. The defacto complainant as well as the victims frankly

told me that they have long ago decided to treat the matter as

closed. In fact, matrimonial alliance has also taken place between

the two sides. More than the petitioners, the victims felt that the

proceedings should be terminated. The occurance itself had taken

place wayback in the year 2008. The occurance took place in

connection with a temple festival. Subsequently, the festival

continues to be celebrated every year and there has been no

subsequent occurrence. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner drew my attention to the decision reported in CDJ 2021 SC

846 Ramawatar vs State of Madhya Pradesh, in which, it is held as

follows:

“13. We, however, put a further caveat that the

powers under Article 142 or under Section 482

Cr.P.C., are exercisable in postconviction matters

only where an appeal is pending before one ot the

other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an

order of conviction does not attain finality till the

accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the

finality is subjudice before an appeallate court. The

pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the

final Court, is sinequanon to involve the superior

court's plenary powers to do complete justice.

Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the

attainment of