Kannan Vs Kushal Chand (deceased)

(sole respondent died. R1 to R6 are substituted as legal heirs of deceased sole respondent as per the order of this court dated 07.06.2024 in Crl.MP.No.7968 of 2024 in Crl.RC.No.647 of 2022)

¶18

__________ Page1 of 9

¶19

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

¶20

CRL RC No. 647 of 2022

¶21

..Respondent(s)

¶22

PRAYER: The criminal revision case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 03.03.2022 passed in Crl. Appeal No.49 of 2017 by the Additional District Court, Mayiladuthurai confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.31 of 2012 dated 14.09.2014 by the learned Fast Track Judge, Mayiladuthurai and acquit the petitioner from the offences and pass such further orders.

¶23

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Govindaraju For Respondent(s): Mr.B.K.Sreenivasan for R1 to R6

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The criminal revision case has been filed to set aside the order dated

¶26

03.03.2022 passed in Crl. Appeal No.49 of 2017 by the Additional District Judge, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.31 of 2012 dated 14.09.2014 by the learned Fast Track Judge, Mayiladuthurai and acquit the petitioner from the offences.

¶27

2.The contention of petitioner is that the respondent Kushal Chand filed a private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against him and the same taken on file in C.C.No.31 of 2012. During trial, respondent examined himself as PW1 and marked as Ex.P1 to P9. On the side of the

¶28

petitioner, he examined five defence witnesses and marked three documents.

¶29

Page2 of 9

¶30

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

¶31

CRL RC No. 647 of 2022

¶32

The trial Court convicted the petitioner by judgment dated 12.09.2017 and sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment and directed him to pay cheque amount of Rs.9 lakhs as compensation. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the lower appellate Court in C.A.No.49 of 2017 and the lower appellate Court by judgment dated 03.03.2022 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction of the trial Court, against which, the present revision.

¶33

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Kushal Chand is a financier and in earlier transaction, cheque was collected from the petitioner, it was later misused. According to the petitioner, he has no liability of 9 lakhs. Further submitted that though he has many other points in his favour to give quietus to the issue, he approached the respondents and compromise was arrived between them and the issue was resolved.

¶34

4.Counsel for the respondents submitted that in this case, the respondent/ complainant Kushal Chand passed away during pendency of revision on 01.05.2022. Thereafter, LRs of Kushal Chand impleaded as respondents 1 to 6. Legal heirs of Kushal Chand now agreed for the compromise proposed by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred criminal revision along with suspension of sentence petition in Crl.M.P.No.6810 of 2022. This Court by order dated 23.05.2022 suspended the sentence on a condition that the petitioner was

¶35

Page3 of 9

¶36

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

¶37

CRL RC No. 647 of 2022

¶38

directed to deposit 50% of the cheque amount (Rs.4,50,000/-) to the credit of C.C.No.31 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Fast Track Court, Mayiladuthurai and the same was deposited vide receipt No.Crl.Misc.61-A/H.C.B.P., Ch.104/Feb-2005. He further submitted that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.80,000/- in cash and issue had been resolved. The respondents are agreed to settle the case for a sum of Rs.5,30,000/-. The petitioner, who deposited Rs.4.5 lakhs before the trial Court has no objection for the legal heirs of Kushal Chand namely respondents 1 to 6, who are wife, sons of Kushal Chand to revive the amount of 4.5. lakhs deposited in C.C.No.31 of 2012. Further legal heirs agreed that the second respondent Mr.Vinoth Kumar eldest son of Kushal Chand shall represent them before trial Court and file appropriate petition/memo to return the deposited amount.

¶39

5.Counsel for the petitioner has no objection to return the deposited cheque amount of Rs.4.5.laksh to the second respondent Vinoth Kumar on behalf of the legal heirs of Kushal Chand.

¶40

6.The petitioner and the legal heirs of deceased Kushal

¶41

Chand/respondents 1 to 6 have compromised the issues and filed joint compromise memo, which scanned and extracted below:

¶42

__________ Page4 of 9

¶43

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

¶44

CRL RC No. 647 of 2022

¶45

__________ Page5 of 9

¶46

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

¶47

CRL RC No. 647 of 2022

¶48

__________ Page6 of 9

¶49

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

¶50

CRL RC No. 647 of 2022

¶51

7.Considering the submission and on perusal of the joint compromise memo, it is seen that both the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 6 compromised their issue for a sum of Rs.5.3/- lakhs and LRs of Kushal Chand agreed that the second respondent/Vinoth Kumar to file appropriate petition /memo before the trial Court along with this order copy and the trial Court is directed to return the amount along with accrued interest, if any dispensing notice to the petitioner/accused.

¶52

8.In view of the above, the criminal revision case is allowed and conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner in C.C.No.31 of 2012 dated 14.09.2014 by the learned Fast Track Judge, Mayiladuthurai and confirmed by the Additional District Court, Mayiladuthurai, in Crl. Appeal No.49 of 2017 by order dated 03.03.2022 is hereby set aside. The petitioner/accused is discharged from all charges.

¶53

13-02-2026

¶54

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶55

sms

¶56

To 1.The Fast Track Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

¶57

__________ Page7 of 9

¶58

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