1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition(MD)No.131 of 2011 1.Somnath 2.M/s.P.S.Somasundara Nadar & Sons, Rep. by its Partner Somnath, No.100, North Cotton Road, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. ... Petitioners/ Appellants 2 & 3 Vs. 1.Xavier 2.The Public Prosecutor, District Court Complex, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to refund the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- which has been deposited to the credit of C.A.No.97 of 2010 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, acknowledged in Receipt No.262287, dated 29.07.2010 pursuant to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in Crl.R.C.(md)No.436 of 2010 dated 29.06.2010 to the petitioners. For Petitioner :: M/s. A.Thiruvadikumar For Respondents 2 :: Mr.L.Murugan, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent 1 :: Mr. N. Ananda Kumar. O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners who are the appellants 2 and 3 in C.A.No.97 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, seeking for a direction to refund the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- which was deposited to the credit of C.A.No.97 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.(md)No.436 of 2010, dated 29.06.2010, to the petitioners in order to pay the said amount to the complainant as per the judgment of the said Court. 2. Heard Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.N.Ananda Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State. 3. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in STC No.29 of 2008, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram and in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 said appeal when they applied for suspension of sentence some conditions have been imposed by the appellate Court and against which they preferred revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.(md)No.436 of 2010 and in the said revision this Court had directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the credit of the appeal in C.A.No.97 of 2010 for suspending the sentence and accordingly, the said sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioners and during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners and the complainant have settled the disputes which was agreed in between them that the deposit of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- be withdrawn by the petitioners and to pay the same to the complainant/first respondent and on the basis of such settlement the appeal was allowed by compounding the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment of the appellate Court would also permit the petitioners to withdraw the amount in pursuance of the compromise reached in between them in order to pay the same to the first respondent/complainant. He would further submit that however, when the petition has been filed by the petitioners for withdrawal it has been returned that the original direction was given by this Court and therefore, suitable orders should be obtained before this Court for permitting the petitioners to withdraw the said amount. Therefore, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners for the issuance of direction to withdraw the amount. 4. The learned counsel for the first respondent would concur with the arguments advanced by the petitioners and would also request the Court, suitable directions may be issued so as to complete the track of compromise. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit in his argument that he is only a formal party and the compromise reached in between the parties may be considered and suitable orders may be passed. 6. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court could see that the deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- made by the petitioners was in pursuance of the conditions imposed by this Court passed in Crl.R.C. (MD) No.436 of 2010, dated 29.06.2010. Accordingly, the said amount was deposited to the credit of the appeal in C.A.No.97 of 2010 and it is available with the said Court. However, a compromise has been reached in between the petitioners and the first respondent and accordingly the appeal was allowed by compounding the offence. It is not in dispute that in accordance with the said compromise the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited by them before the appellate Court in C.A.No.97 of 2010 and to pay the said amount to the first respondent towards the cheque amount. Therefore, there is no impediment for this Court to direct the petitioners to withdraw the amount as per the compromise reached by them in the appeal. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited to the credit of C.A.No.97 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, as per the direction of this Court made in Crl.R.C.(md)No.436 of 2010 to be withdrawn by the petitioners for the sake of paying the said money to the first respondent towards the compromise. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to re-present the returned application for passing suitable orders in the said petition as per the direction made in this petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 With the aforesaid observations, this petition is ordered. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR srm/ns To 1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. 2.The Public Prosecutor, District Court Complex, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 1CC TO MR. A. THIRUVADI KUMAR, ADVOCATE, SR: 2567: DM:2011:JANURARY:25: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.131 of 2011 22.01.2011 3P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/