logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 5699 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : Crl. R.C. Nos. 147 & 149 of 2022
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Parties : Karthikeyan Versus Varatharajan & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M. Dinesh, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, R. Sampathkumar, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 07-08-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 397 r/w. Section 401 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.147 of 2022 : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment made in Crl.A.No.06 of 2017 in C.C.No.194 of 2008 on the file of Additional District Judge, Mayiladuthurai dated 20.03.2020 confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.194 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai dated 12.04.2017.

In Crl.R.C.No.149 of 2022: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment made in Crl.A.No.51 of 2017 in C.C.No.194 of 2008 on the file of Additional District Judge, Mayiladuthurai dated 20.03.2020 confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.194 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai dated 12.04.2017.)

Common Order

1. Crl.RC.No.147 of 2022 is filed by the against the judgment passed in C.A.No.6 of 2017 confirming the conviction in C.C.No.194 of 2008 and Crl.R.C.No.149 of 2022 is filed against the judgment passed in C.A.No.51 of 2017 directing the petitioner to return 13 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.2,00,000/- in cash.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 11.09.2002, the petitioner married one Nirmala, daughter of the first respondent Varatharajan. During the marriage, sirdhana articles and jewels presented by the first respondent to his daughter. Out of the marriage, they were blessed with twin children, one male and one female. On 22.06.2004, the first respondent’s daughter due to harassment and dowry demand unable to withstand the same, committed suicide for which the petitioner was facing a case in S.C.No.113 of 2005. The learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Thanjavur acquitted the petitioner from the case by judgment dated 28.11.2007. Against which, the first respondent filed a revision petition before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

3. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed a case in C.C.No.194 of 2008 under Dowry Prohibition Act seeking for return of gold jewels and valuable articles presented during the marriage. During trial, the first respondent herein examined himself as PW1 and his son Ramu examined as PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 marked. On the side of the defence, the petitioner examined himself as DW1. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in C.A.No.6 of 2017 and the first respondent herein filed an appeal in C.A.No.51 of 2017 for enhancement of sentence and to return the sridhana articles including gold jewels. The learned Additional District Judge, Mayiladuthurai by common judgment dated 20.03.2020 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/accused and allowed the appeal filed by the first respondent/complainant and further ordered the petitioner/accused to return 13 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.2,00,000/- in cash. Against which, the above two revisions filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that to resolve the dispute amicably and to give quietus to the issue, the first respondent/complainant agrees to receive Rs.8,00,000/-. A memo of compromise dated 28.08.2025 filed which was signed by the petitioner, his children Vignesh Karthikeyan Nirmala and Sujithra Karthikeyan Nirmal and the first respondent’s son Ramu, in which the petitioner undertakes to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- each to the children, totaling a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. Pursuant to which, the petitioner paid Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to the first respondent’s son Ramu on 20.01.2026. Again on 06.02.2026, the petitioner handed over a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to the first respondent’s son Ramu. Further on 20.02.2026, remaining balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner. An affidavit confirming payment filed by the petitioner to that effect and seeks for compounding the offence.

5. The first respondent complainant represented by his son Ramu, who was examined as PW2 in C.C.No.194 of 2008, appeared before this Court and agreed for the compromise and confirmed the receipt of Rs.8,00,000/- as detailed in the affidavit of the petitioner.

6. A scanned reproduction of the memo of compromise filed on 28.08.2025 and the affidavit filed confirming the payment of agreed amount of Rs.8,00,000/- is as follows:















7. Considering the fact that the issue had been resolved amicably between the petitioner and the first respondent, the conviction of the petitioner passed in C.C.No.194 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai by judgment dated 12.04.2017 which is confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mayiladuthurai in Crl.A.No.6 of 2017 by judgment dated 20.03.2020 is hereby set aside. Further, the issue involved in Crl.A.No.51 of 2017 filed by the first respondent is resolved.

8. In the result, both the Criminal Revision Petitions stand disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal