DATED : 17.08.2023

CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

Crl.A.(MD).No.658 of 2023

Introduction:

The case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Dhandapani revolves around a criminal appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appeal aims to challenge the order denying bail to the appellant, Dhandapani, who was accused of involvement in a clash between two communities during a temple festival. The incident led to injuries and damage to public property, prompting the police to register a case against Dhandapani and others. The appeal seeks to set aside the order denying bail and grant bail to Dhandapani, considering the circumstances.

Background:

On June 2, 2023, a temple festival was taking place at Sri Kalamega Perumal Kovil in Thirumohur, Madurai District. During a cultural event, a clash erupted between individuals from two different communities, resulting in the destruction of vehicles and injuries to several individuals. The clash led to the registration of a case (Crime No.195 of 2023) by the Othakadai Police Station against multiple individuals, including Dhandapani. The charges included offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

Trial Court’s Decision:

Dhandapani sought bail through a petition (Crl.M.P.No.2183 of 2023), which was dismissed by the III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR Act), Madurai, on July 25, 2023. The trial court’s refusal to grant bail was based on the gravity of the charges, potential tampering with witnesses, and the possibility of renewed clashes between communities.

Arguments Presented:

The appellant’s counsel contended that some co-accused had been granted bail, and peace had been restored in the area. Dhandapani’s bail was sought considering the prevailing circumstances.

The Government Advocate (Criminal Side) acknowledged that some co-accused had been granted bail and that Dhandapani had no prior criminal record. However, concerns about witness tampering and potential community clashes were raised.

The counsel for the de facto complainant opposed bail, citing the risk of witness tampering and the potential for clashes, even though the appellant did not belong to either rival community.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

The Court considered the appellant’s period of incarceration, the fact that peace had been restored in the locality, and that some co-accused had been granted bail. Additionally, it noted that Dhandapani had no previous criminal record. Balancing these factors, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail.

Bail Conditions:

The Court ordered Dhandapani’s release on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of a similar amount. Specific bail conditions were set, including:

1. The sureties should provide photographs and their thumb impressions in the bond and submit valid identity cards for verification.
2. Dhandapani must reside in Dindigul and report to the Dindigul Town North Police Station daily at 10:30 am.
3. He must not tamper with evidence or witnesses, cooperate with the investigation, and not engage in any actions that may violate the law.

Conclusion:

The case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Dhandapani illustrates the Court’s meticulous consideration of the circumstances while deciding on bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court’s decision took into account the prevailing situation of peace, the status of co-accused, and the appellant’s criminal record. Balancing the potential risks and ensuring justice, the Court granted bail with specific conditions to safeguard both the appellant’s rights and the interests of justice. This case analysis highlights the importance of a balanced approach in such cases, considering the potential impact on social harmony, witness tampering, and the principles of the legal system.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreeya S Shekar

Click here to view judgement

Rajesh v. Sathish Kumar

Dated : 16.08.2023

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.904 of 2023

Introduction:

The case of Rajesh v. Sathish Kumar revolves around a dispute related to a dishonoured cheque, in accordance with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner/appellant, Rajesh, borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 from the respondent/complainant, Sathish Kumar, and issued a cheque to repay the debt. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, leading to legal proceedings against Rajesh.

Factual Background:

On July 1, 2013, Rajesh borrowed Rs. 2,00,000 from Sathish Kumar. To settle the debt, Rajesh issued a cheque dated January 22, 2014, drawn on Canara Bank, Kulithalai Branch. However, the cheque was returned on January 28, 2014, due to insufficient funds. Sathish Kumar sent a legal notice on February 12, 2014, which Rajesh received on February 17, 2014. Despite the notice, Rajesh failed to make the payment, prompting Sathish Kumar to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kulithalai.

Trial and Conviction:

Rajesh appeared before the trial court upon receiving summons and contested the case. The trial court, after following due procedure, examined witnesses and perused relevant documents. Based on the evidence, including testimonies of PW.1, PW.2, D.W.1, and court witness CW.1, and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A7, the trial court convicted Rajesh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment and was also ordered to pay Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation.

Appeal and Confirmation:

Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, Rajesh filed a criminal appeal (Crl.A.No.168 of 2018) before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karur. However, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision and confirmed the conviction and sentence on May 24, 2019.

Current Proceedings:

Rajesh then approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court via a Criminal Revision Case (Crl.R.C(MD)No.904 of 2023) under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). He sought the court’s intervention to set aside the judgments of the lower courts and acquit him from the charges. Rajesh was represented by Mr. R. Mathiyalagan, while Mr. R. Murugan represented Sathish Kumar.

Compromise and Resolution:

During the hearing, both counsels informed the court that the matter had been compromised between the parties. They explained that Rajesh had been arrested on July 13, 2023, and was currently in jail, which prevented them from filing a formal compromise memo. Despite this, they confirmed that Sathish Kumar had received the cheque amount of Rs. 2,00,000.

Court’s Decision:

Given the circumstances, the respondent, Sathish Kumar, appeared before the court and affirmed that he had indeed received the cheque amount. Taking into consideration Rajesh’s incarceration and the inability to file a formal compromise memo, the court recorded the respondent’s affirmation statement regarding the receipt of the cheque amount.

In light of the affirmation and the fact that the respondent had received the full amount due, the court applied Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and compounded the offense under Section 138. Consequently, the court allowed the Criminal Revision Case, setting aside the judgments of both the trial court and the appellate court. Rajesh was acquitted from the charges levied against him.

Conclusion:

The case of Rajesh v. Sathish Kumar underscores the importance of compromise and resolution in legal proceedings, particularly when the parties involved have reached an agreement. The court’s decision to record the respondent’s affirmation, coupled with the application of relevant sections of the Negotiable Instruments Act, allowed for a just resolution to the case. The analysis of this case highlights the significance of effective legal representation, adherence to procedural norms, and the role of compromise in ensuring the efficient functioning of the legal system.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreeya S Shekar

Click here to view judgement