Partly allowed

Arivazhagan @ Arun v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Nov 2024CRL A/159/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against conviction for trespass and violence at a hospital; defacto complainant also appealed acquittal on certain charges. Parties entered a compromise with Rs.50 lakh reparation paid. Court accepted the compromise, set aside the conviction and sentence, dismissed the complainant's appeal, and allowed the memo recording the compromise.

What the court decided

AI extract

Arivazhagan @ Arun Vs Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.15599 of 2024

¶7

Crl.A.No.159 of 2023

¶8

1.Arivazhagan @ Arun 2.Hari @ Hariharan 3.Dinesh 4.Jeykanth @ Jeyprakash ... Appellants

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, R-7, KK Nagar Police Station, Chennai. (Crime No.21 of 2014). ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal

¶12

Procedure, to call for the records and to set aside the judgment and sentence dated 02.02.2023 imposed in S.C.No.288/2019 passed by the learned I Additional (TADA) Sessions Judge, Chennai.

¶13

Page No.1 of 18

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶16

Crl.A.No.166 of 2023 1.Gokul @ Gokula Krishnan 2.Alex @ William Alexander 3.Sathish @ Sathishkumar 4.Ganesh Prabu ... Appellants

¶17

Vs.

¶18

State By, Inspector of Police, R-7, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Chennai-78. ... Respondent

¶19

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal

¶20

Procedure, to set aside the judgment passed in S.C.No.288 of 2019 dated

¶21

02.02.2023 by the learned I Additional (TADA) Sessions Judge, Chennai and acquit the appellants.

¶22

Crl.A.No.628 of 2023 Dr.G.Ilangovan ... Appellant

¶23

Vs.

¶24

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, R7 KK Nagar Police Station, Chennai. (Crime No.21/2014).

¶25

Page No.2 of 18

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶28

2.Gokul @ Gokulakrishnan

¶29

3.Alex @ William Alexander

¶30

4.Arivazhagan @ Arun

¶31

5.Hari @ Hariharan

¶32

6.Dinesh 7.Sathish @ Sathish Kumar

¶33

8.Ganeshbabu

¶34

9.Jayakanth @ Jayaprakash

¶35

... Respondents

¶36

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of Code of Criminal

¶37

Procedure, to call for the records and to set aside the judgment dated 2-2-

¶38

2023 made in SC No.288/2019 passed by the learned 1 st Additional (TADA) Sessions Judge, Chennai acquitting the respondents 2 to 9 with regard to the

¶39

offences u/s 3 of The Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage

¶40

and Loss) Act, 1992 and with regard to the offences under Section 4 of The

¶41

Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act alone u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C.

¶42

In Crl.A.No.159 of 2023: For Appellants : Mr.R.Vivekananthan For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶43

In Crl.A.No.166 of 2023:

¶44

For Appellants : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Sudhanraj For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap,

¶45

Page No.3 of 18

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶48

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) In Crl.A.No.628 of 2023: For Appellant : Mr.R.Rajarathinam, Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Shruthan For R1 : Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R4, R5, R6 & R9 : Mr.R.Vivekananthan For R2, R3, R7 & R8 : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Sudhanraj

¶49

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶50

Crl.A.Nos.159 & 166 of 2023 have been filed to set aside the judgment of conviction, dated 02.02.2023 in S.C.No.288 of 2019 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge (TADA), Chennai.

¶51

2.Crl.A.No.628 of 2023 has been filed to set aside the judgment,

¶52

dated 02.02.2023 in S.C.No.288 of 2019 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge (TADA), Chennai acquitting the respondents 2 to 9 with regard to the charges framed under Sections 3 of The Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and Section 4 of The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 2002.

¶53

Page No.4 of 18

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶56

3.The appellants in Crl.A.No.159 & 166 of 2023 and the respondents

¶57

2 to 9 in Crl.A.No.628 of 2023 are referred to as 'Accused' as per their rank in the charge sheet and the appellant in Crl.A.No.628 of 2023 is referred to as 'Defacto complainant'.

¶58

4.The conviction and sentenced imposed against the accused in

¶59

S.C.No.288 of 2019 are as follows:

¶60

Rank of the Accused	Offence under Section	Conviction and Sentence
A1 to A8	For offence under Section 147 IPC.	A1 to A8 were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo one month of Rigorous Imprisonment each.
A1 to A8	For offence under Section 448 IPC.	A1 to A8 were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo two weeks of Rigorous Imprisonment each.
A1 to A8	For offence under Section 352 r/w 149 IPC.	A1 to A8 were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo two weeks of Rigorous Imprisonment each.

¶61

Page No.5 of 18

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶64

A1 to A8	For offence Section 35 149 IPC counts).	under 5 r/w (Two	A1 to A8 were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for each count in default to undergo one month of Rigorous Imprisonment each for each count.
A1 to A8	For offence Section 506(	under i) IPC.	A1 to A8 were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo one month of Rigorous Imprisonment each.
A1 to A8	For offence Section 3 Tamil Medicare Persons Medicare Institutions (Prevention Violence Damage or Property) 2008.	under of The Nadu Service and Service of and Loss to Act,	A1 to A8 were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo six months of Rigorous Imprisonment each.

¶65

5.The allegation against the accused is that on 05.01.2024 at about 04.15 a.m, the accused had criminally trespassed into Guru Raghavendra Hospital run by the defacto complainant suspecting that the defacto complainant was responsible for the income tax raid against the accused;

¶66

Page No.6 of 18

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶69

and that the accused attacked the defacto complainant and his son and damaged the articles in the reception of the hospital and also damaged the two cars belonging to the defacto complainant.

¶70

6.During the pendency of the appeals, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the accused was suspended by this Court by orders, dated 16.02.2023 and 22.02.2023. The accused and the defacto complainant pending the appeals had entered into a compromise which reads as follows:

¶71

Crl.A.No.159 of 2023 :

¶72

“ This memo of compromise entered on this day the 11 th of November, 2024 BETWEEN

¶73

Arivazhagan @ Arun, aged about 39 yrs, Son of Muthusamy, residing at No.120, S.Ganesan street, Janaki nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087.

¶74

Hari @Hariharan, aged about 39 yrs, Son of Nagarajan, residing at B.1 Abhilaasha Apartment, No. 180, A.V.M.Avenue, 2^nd main road, Virugambakkam, Chennai600 093.

¶75

Page No.7 of 18

¶76

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶77

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶78

Dinesh, aged about 39 yrs, Son of Seenivasan, residing at No.S-4, Varaaha vision, 4th street, Shanti colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.

¶79

Jeykanth @Jeyprakash, aged about 45 yrs, Son of Chandrahasan, residing at No.1, 2^nd cross street, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. herein together called as the 'FIRST PARTY'

¶80

AND

¶81

Dr.G.Ilangovan, Son of Mr. Gurusamy, aged about 75 years, residing at No.100/ A5, 66^th street, Poonambalam Salai, 11^th Sector, KK Nagar, Chennai-600 078 herein called as the 'SECOND PARTY'

¶82

The FIRST PARTY and the SECOND PARTYdo hereby enters into a joint compromise with the following terms agreed by both of them:

¶83

1. That the SECOND PARTY Dr.G.Ilangovan had filed a criminal complainant as against the FIRST PARTY before the R-7, KK Nagar Police station in Crime No.21/2014 dated 05.01.2014 for the offences under Section 147, 448, 352 r/w 149, 355 r/w 149, 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC and under section 3 of TN Medical services Persons and Medicare Service

¶84

Page No.8 of 18

¶85

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶86

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶87

Institution (Prevention of violence and damage or loss to property) Act, 2008.

¶88

2. That the FIRST PARTY was later convicted by the Learned I Additional Sessions Judge, TADA, Chennai in Sessions Case No. 288/2019 by a judgement dated 02.02.2023 under Section 147 IPC, 448 IPC, 352 r/w 149 IPC, 355 r/w 149 IPC, Section 506(i) IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions( Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to property) Act, 2008.

¶89

3. That the FIRST PARTY Arivazhagan @ Arun, Hari @ Hariharan, Dinesh, Jeykanth @ Jeyprakash arrayed as A3, A4, A5 and A8 have filed the appeal against the conviction in Crl.A.No.159/2023 before this Hon'ble High Court.

¶90

4. That the SECOND PARTY has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Crl.A.No.628/2023 for enhancement of sentence awarded to the FIRST PARTY and the same is pending.

¶91

5. That during the pendency of the appeal, the FIRST PARTY and the SECOND PARTY enters upon the present

¶92

Page No.9 of 18

¶93

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶94

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶95

joint compromise memo since both parties have renewed their relations and both of their families have now become friends during the pendency of the appeal.

¶96

6. That pursuant to the compromise, the FIRST PARTY for the injured feelings of the SECOND PARTY has proposed and persuaded the SECOND PARTY to accept by way of small reparation a sum of Rs.50,00,000 (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only). The SECOND PARTY, persuaded by hiswell wishers had accepted the same.

¶97

7. That the FIRST PARTY had deposited by RTGS a sum of Rs.25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) to the SECOND PARTY on 02.04.2024 vide UTR No.IDIBR52024040238352944 and another sum of Rs.25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) to the SECOND PARTY on 18.07.2024 vide UTR No. IDIBR/52024071840119152.

¶98

8. That the SECOND PARTY have no objection in setting aside the conviction imposed as against the FIRST PARTY namely Arivazhagan @Arun, Hari @ Hariharan, Dinesh, Jeykanth @ Jeyprakash in S.C.No.288/2019 on the file of the Learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

¶99

Page No.10 of 18

¶100

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶101

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶102

9. That the SECOND PARTY has no objection whatsoever in setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed and acquitting them in the appeal filed by the FIRST PARTY in Crl.A.No.166/2023 and pending before this Hon'ble High Court.

¶103

10. That the SECOND PARTY states that he and family has no objection whatsoever nature for the FIRST PARTY getting exonerated and released from the case.

¶104

11. That the SECOND PARTY undertakes to personally appear and submit the present terms of the joint memo of compromise entered between him and the FIRST PARTY before the Hon'ble Madras High Court.

¶105

12. The FIRST PARTY and the SECOND PARTY have entered upon this memorandum of compromise with the above terms with free will and not on any kind of coercion, threat and is binding on both the parties.

¶106

Dated at Chennai on this the 11th day of November, 2024. ”

¶107

Page No.11 of 18

¶108

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶109

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶110

Crl.A.No.166 of 2023 :

¶111

“ This memo of Compromise entered on this day the 11 th of

¶112

November, 2024

¶113

BETWEEN

¶114

Gokul @ Gokula Krishnan, Son of Mr. Radhakrishnan, aged about 38 years, residing at No.931, 69th street, 11th Sector, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-600078.

¶115

Alex @William Alexander, aged about 36 yrs Son of Thomas, residing at No.249, Kamarajar street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 078.

¶116

Sathish @Sathishkumar aged about 37 yrs, Son of Vasu, residing at No.934/A, New Tech Apartment, 11th Sector, 69^th Chennai-600 078. street, K.K.Nagar.

¶117

Ganesh Prabhu, aged about 32 yrs, Son of Vasu, residing at No.934/A, New Tech Apartment, 11^th Sector, 69^th street, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-600 078.

¶118

herein together called as the 'FIRST PARTY'

¶119

AND

¶120

Page No.12 of 18

¶121

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶122

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶123

Dr.G.Ilangovan, Son of Mr. Gurusamy, aged about 75 years, residing at No. 100/ A5, 66th street, Poonambalam Salai, 11th Sector, KK Nagar, Chennai-600 078 herein called as the 'SECOND PARTY'

¶124

The FIRST PARTY and the SECOND PARTYdo hereby enters into a joint compromise with the following terms agreed by both of them:

¶125

1. That the SECOND PARTY Dr.G.Ilangovan had filed a criminal complainant as against the FIRST PARTY before the R-7,KK Nagar Police station in Crime No.21/2014 dated 05.01.2014 for the offences under Section 147, 448,352 r/w 149, 355 r/w 149,506(ii) r/w 149 IPC and under section 3 of TN Medical services Persons and Medicare Service Institution( Prevention of violence and damage or loss to property) Act, 2008.

¶126

2. That the FIRST PARTY was later convicted by the Learned I Additional Sessions Judge, TADA, Chennai in Sessions Case No. 288/2019 by a judgement dated 02.02.2023 under Section 147 IPC,448 IPC, 352 r/w 149 IPC, 355 r/w 149 IPC, Section 506(i) IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Medicare Service Persons and Medicare

¶127

Page No.13 of 18

¶128

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶129

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶130

Service Institutions( Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to property) Act, 2008.

¶131

3. That the FIRST PARTY Gokul @ Gokula Krishnan, Alex @ William Alexander, Sathish @ Sathishkumar,Ganesh Prabhu arrayed as A1,A2,A6 and A7 have filed the appeal against the conviction in Crl.A.No. 166/2023 before this Hon'ble High Court.

¶132

4. That the SECOND PARTY has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Crl.A.No.628/2023 for enhancement of sentence awarded to the FIRST PARTY and the same is pending.

¶133

5. That during the pendency of the appeal, the FIRST PARTY and the SECOND PARTY enters upon the present joint compromise memo since both parties have renewed their relations and both of their families have now become friends during the pendency of the appeal.

¶134

¶135

Page No.14 of 18

¶136

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶137

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶138

Fifty Lakhs Only). The SECOND PARTY, persuaded by hiswell wishers had accepted the same.

¶139

7. That the FIRST PARTY had deposited by RTGS a sum of Rs.25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) to the SECOND PARTY on 02.04.2024 vide UTR No. IDIBR52024040238352944 and another sum of Rs.25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) to the SECOND PARTY on 18.07.2024 vide UTR No. IDIBR/52024071840119152.

¶140

8. That the SECOND PARTY have no objection in setting aside the conviction imposed as against the FIRST PARTY namely Gokul @ Gokula Krishnan, Alex @ William Alexander, Sathish @Sathishkumar, Ganesh Prabhu, Arivazhagan Arun, Hari @Hariharan, Dinesh and Jeykanth @Jeyprakashin S.C.No. 288/2019 on the file of the Learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

¶141

9. That the SECOND PARTY has no objection whatsoever in setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed and acquitting them in the appeal filed by the FIRST PARTY in Crl.A.No. 166/2023 and pending before this Hon'ble High Court.

¶142

Page No.15 of 18

¶143

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶144

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶145

10. That the SECOND PARTY states that he and family has no objection whatsoever nature for the FIRST PARTY getting exonerated and released from the case.

¶146

11. That the SECOND PARTY undertakes to personally appear and submit the present terms of the joint memo of compromise entered between him and the FIRST PARTY before the Hon'ble Madras High Court.

¶147

12. The FIRST PARTY and the SECOND PARTY have entered upon this memorandum of compromise with the above terms with free will and not

¶148

on any kind of coercion, threat and is binding on both the parties.

¶149

Dated at Chennai on this the 11th day of November, 2024. ”

¶150

7.The parties are present and have confirmed the compromise. Out of

¶151

the offences alleged against the accused, the offences under Section 3 of The Tamil Nadu Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions

¶152

Page No.16 of 18

¶153

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶154

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶155

(Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2008 and Sections 147 & 149 of IPC are non-compoundable. Therefore, the said offences alleged against the accused cannot be compounded under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, the dispute between the parties is purely private in nature. Hence, this Court is inclined to accept the compromise between the parties as it is well settled that where the dispute is private in nature, not withstanding the fact that the offences alleged are non-compoundable this Court can exercise its inherent power to do justice to the parties and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants.

¶156

8.Accordingly, Crl.A.Nos.159 & 166 of 2023 are allowed setting aside the judgment of conviction, dated 02.02.2023 in S.C.No.288 of 2019 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge (TADA), Chennai. Consequently, the appeal filed by the defacto complainant in Crl.A.No.628 of 2023 challenging the acquittal is dismissed and Crl.M.P.No.15599 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.166 of 2023 filed by the defacto complainant to accept and record the memo of Joint Compromise, is allowed.

11.11.2024

Index : Yes/No

Page No.17 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶161

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶162

Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vv2

¶163

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶164

vv2

¶165

To 1.The I Additional Sessions Judge (TADA), Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, R-7, KK Nagar Police Station, Chennai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶166

Crl.A.Nos.159, 166 & 628 of 2023

¶167

11.11.2024

¶168

Page No.18 of 18

¶169

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arivazhagan @ Arun v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Arivazhagan @ Arun v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Rasalam Vs Saul

N.Prasanna Vs P.Kalaiselvi

Viswanathan @ Viji Vs State Rep by

Ceoa Educational Society, Vs Chief controlling revenue Authority / Inspector General of Registration

P.Vetriselvan Vs State Rep by

Naadodigal Vs Madras Enterprises