S.Ravikumar Vs Manimalar Investments — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

S.Ravikumar Vs Manimalar Investments — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Original Petition allowed: proceedings in C.A.No.87 of 2019 (Principal District & Sessions Court, Namakkal) and C.C.No.304 of 2016 (learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal) quashed as against the petitioner alone under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 on the basis of the Joint Memo of Compromise (made part and parcel of the order), subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to the Chief Justice Relief Fund, Tamil Nadu, with a photocopy of the receipt and a compliance memo to be filed in the Registry.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings arising from the petitioner's conviction in C.C.No.304 of 2016 (confirmed in C.A.No.87 of 2019 and connected to Crl.R.C.No.916 of 2020) can be quashed pursuant to a post-petition amicable settlement (Joint Memo of Compromise), notwithstanding that the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

Court's answer

Pending the petition, the parties decided to bury their hatchet and settle the dispute amicably; a Joint Memo of Compromise signed by the petitioner, the respondent and their respective counsel was filed, the parties were identified (with Aadhaar Card copies placed on record), and the Court enquired into both parties and stood satisfied that an amicable settlement had been arrived at.

Ratio / Principle

Under the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending even though the offences involved are not compoundable in nature; therefore, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath (2017 9 SCC 641), the Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, quashed the proceedings in C.A.No.87 of 2019 (Principal District & Sessions Court, Namakkal) and in C.C.No.304 of 2016 (learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal).

Key takeaways

The proceedings in C.A.No.87 of 2019 and C.C.No.304 of 2016 were quashed as against the petitioner alone; the terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise form part and parcel of the order; and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs to the Chief Justice Relief Fund, Tamil Nadu forthwith and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.) — Crl.O.P.No.20959 of 2024 under Section 528 BNSS: petition by the convicted accused (S. Ravikumar) seeking leave to compound the offence arising from his conviction in C.C.No.304 of 2016 (JM-1, Namakkal, 14.11.2019), confirmed in appeal in C.A.No.87 of 2019 (Principal District & Sessions Court, Namakkal, 14.09.2020) and connected to Crl.R.C.No.916 of 2020, and to set aside the conviction. Pending the petition the parties filed a Joint Memo of Compromise signed by both sides and their counsel; the parties appeared, were identified (Aadhaar copies produced), were enquired into, and the Court recorded an amicable settlement. Holding that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings alive even though the offences involved were not compoundable, and acting on the Supreme Court guidelines in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath, 2017 9 SCC 641, the Court exercised its Section 528 BNSS, 2023 jurisdiction and quashed both the appellate and trial-court proceedings as against the petitioner alone, made the Joint Memo part and parcel of the order, and allowed the petition subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to the Chief Justice Relief Fund, Tamil Nadu, with a compliance memo to be filed in the Registry.