Madras High Court
V.Prakash vs Vijayakumar on 21 July, 2026
Crl.RC.769 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.07.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
Crl.R.C..No.769 of 2026 &
Crl.M.P.No.6086 of 2026
V. Prakash
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Vijayakumar,
Prop.Balaji Equipments,
No.14/46, Patel Street,
Surampattivalasu, Erode.
..Respondent(s)
Criminal Revision Case filed under sections 438, to 442 of BNSS to call for
the records in respect of the impugned judgment made in Crl.A.No.71 of
2022 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Erode, confirming
the order in STC.No.488 of 2018 before the Fast Track Court II at
Magisterial Level, Erode and set aside the same and consequentially allow
the Revision Petition.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Mr.Abinesh
for Mr.M.Navin Kumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.J.Titus Enock
ORDER
Heard Mr.Abinesh, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and
Mr.J.Titus Enock, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and
__________
Page1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026
Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel, learned Govt. Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the
State.
2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set
aside the judgment passed by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Erode in C.A.No.71 of 2022, dated 30.01.2026, confirming the order passed by
the learned Fast Track Court-II at Magisterial Level, Erode in STC.No.488 of
2018, dated 01.04.2022.
3. The facts of the case in a nutshell, led to filing of this Criminal Revision
Petition and necessary for disposal of the same, are as follows:-
a) The Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the Fast
Track Court-II at Magisterial Level, Erode made in STC.No.488
of 2018, by the judgment dated 01.04.2022, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, in default in payment of
compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the Petitioner filed a
Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.71 of 2022 before the II Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Erode.
b) The learned First Appellate Court has confirming the
__________
Page2 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026
judgment passed by the trial court by dismissing the said Appeal
vide order dated 30.01.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the present
Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.
4.Pending, Criminal Revision, the parties to the Revision have amicably
settled the matter among themselves and have entered into a Joint Memorandum
of Compromise of Full and Final Settlement. Today, when the matter is taken up
for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been
settled among the parties, in pursuance of which, a Joint Memorandum of
Compromise has been entered between the parties on 18.07.2026. The terms of
the Joint Memorandum of Compromise, dated 18.07.2026, duly signed by the
parties and their respective counsel is extracted hereunder:
JOINT MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE
“ The petitioner and the respondent respectfully submit as follows:
1. The above Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the
judgment dated 30.01.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal no.71 of 2022
by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode,
confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01.04.2022
passed in STC No.488 of 2018 by the Fast Track Court-II at
Magisterial Level, Erode.
2. During the pendency of the above Criminal Revision Petition, the
parties have amicably resolved all their disputes through the
intervention of elders and well-wishers, without any coercion, undue
influence or compulsion.
3. The parties have agreed that a total sum of rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakhs only) shall be treated as the full and final settlement of all
claims arising out of the cheque which is the subject matter of STC
No.488 of 2018.
__________
Page3 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026
4. In pursuance of the above settlement, the Petitioner has paid and the
Respondent has received the following amounts:
Sl.No. Date Amount (Rs.)
1 25.12.2020 20,000/-
2 25.01.2021 15,000/-
3 25.02.2021 15,000/-
4 23.03.2021 10,000/-
5 13.10.2021 15,000/-
6 17.07.2026 1,25,000/-
Total Rs.2,00,000/-
5. The Respondent hereby acknowledges the receipt of the entire
settlement amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) from the
petitioner and declares that the said amount has been received towards
full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the transaction in
question. The Respondent further states that no amount remains due
or payable by the petitioner in connection with the cheque involved in
STC.No.488 of 2018.
6. In view of the above settlement, the respondent has no objection to
this Hon’ble Court recording this compromise, permitting
compounding of the offence under section 147 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, allowing the Criminal Revision Petition, and
setting aside the judgments dated 30.01.2026 passed in criminal
Appeal No.71 of 2022 and dated 01.04.2022 passed in STC.No.488 of
2018.
7. The parties submit that this compromise has been entered into
voluntarily, out of their own free will, without any force, coercion,
undue influence or misrepresentation, and the parties shall remain
bound by the terms of this memorandum. The respondent further
__________
Page4 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026
undertakes that he shall not initiate or pursue any civil or criminal
proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the cheque which is the
subject matter of STC No.488 of 2018 after receipt of the agreed
settlement amount.
For the reasons stated above, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to record this Joint Memorandum of
Compromise, permit compounding of the offence under section 147 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, allow the Criminal Revision
Petition by setting aside the judgments of the Courts below and pass
such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.’
5. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that pending
Revision, the matter has been settled between the parties and based on the
settlement arrived among themselves, both the parties have entered into a Joint
Memorandum of Compromise, dated 18.07.2026,, duly singed by the parties and
their respective counsels and to that effect, the Criminal Revision case shall be
disposed of in accordance with the terms and conditions as contained therein.
6. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the matter has been compromised and he has received a
sum of Rs.2,00,0000/- towards full and final settlement of all claims arising out
the transaction in question and no amount is due against the Revision Petitioner.
He further submits that he is not interested in continuing the case against the
Revision Petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the
present Revision has been filed on 03.03.2026 before this Court and on the basis
__________
Page5 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026
of change in circumstances, as the parties have entered into Memorandum of
Compromise, it was prayed to this Court to compound the offence. It was further
argued by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that this Court has
inherent powers to compound the offence, so that, ends of justice could be secured
as the object of Negotiable Instruments Act is primarily compensatory and not
punitive and moreover Section 147 of NI Act would have an overriding effect on
Section 359 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) Irrespective of
which stage, the parties are compromising with the kind leave of this Hon’ble
Court.
8. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner
has submitted that in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs.Sayed Babalal H
reported at 2010 (2) SCC (Cri) 1328, the Hon’ble Apex Court had formulated
the guidelines for compounding the offence under section 138 N.I. Act wherein in
para 21, it was pleased to observed as under :
“With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing
cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame
guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who
unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the
requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for
delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding
of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the
drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An
application for compounding made after several years not only
results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also
deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct
that the following guidelines be followed:- THE GUIDELINES (i)
In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
__________
Page6 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026
(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be
suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make
an application for compounding of the offences at the first or
second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made,
compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any
costs on the accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding
as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made
before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage,compounding can be
allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required
to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition
for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such
authority as the Court deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the
Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such
compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused
pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the
Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque
amount.”
9. Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner also submitted that in the
case of M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another vs.
Kanchan Mehta reported at 2017 (7) Supreme 558, the Hon’ble the Apex
Court in para 18, was pleased to observe as under :
i) Offence under Section 138 of the Act is primarily a
civil wrong. Burden of proof is on accused in view
presumption under Section 139 but the standard of such
proof is “preponderance of probabilities”. The same has
to be normally tried summarily as per provisions of
summary trial under the Cr.P.C. but with such variation
as may be appropriate to proceedings under Chapter__________
Page7 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026XVII of the Act. Thus read, principle of Section 258
Cr.P.C. will apply and the Court can close the
proceedings and discharge the accused on satisfaction
that the cheque amount with assessed costs and interest
is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with the
punitive aspect.
(ii)The object of the provision being primarily
compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the
object of enforcing the compensatory element,
compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged
but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate
compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties
or the Court.
(iii)Though compounding requires consent of both
parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in
the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the
complainant has been duly compensated, can in its
discretion close the proceedings and discharge the
accused.
(iv)Procedure for trial of cases under ChapterXVII of
the Act has normally to be summary. The discretion of
the Magistrate under second proviso to Section 143, to
hold that it was undesirable to try the case summarily as
sentence of more than one year may have to be passed,
is to be exercised after considering the further fact that
apart from the sentence ofimprisonment, the Court has
jurisdiction under Section357(3) Cr.P.C. to award
suitable compensation with default sentence under
Section 64 IPC and with further powers of recovery
under Section 431 Cr.P.C. With thisapproach, prison
sentence of more than one year maynot be required in
all cases.
(v) Since evidence of the complaint can be given on
affidavit, subject to the Court summoning the person
giving affidavit and examining him and the bank’s slip
being prima facie evidence of the dishonor of cheque, it
is unnecessary for the Magistrate to record any further
preliminary evidence. Such affidavit evidence can be
read as evidence at all stages of trial or other__________
Page8 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026proceedings. The manner of examination of the person
giving affidavit can be as per Section 264 Cr.P.C. The
scheme is to follow summary procedure except where
exercise of power under second proviso to Section
143becomes necessary, where sentence of one year may
have to be awarded and compensation under
Section357(3) is considered inadequate, having regard
to the amount of the cheque, the financial capacity and
the conduct of the accused or any other circumstances’.
10. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further relied upon the
judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Kripal Singh Pratap Singh
Ori vs. Salvinder Kaur Hardip Singh reported in 2004 Crl. L. J.3786
wherein, the Gujarat High Court was pleased to observe as under:-
31. In the circumstances, it is hereby declared that the
compromise arrived between the parties to this litigation
out of court is accepted as genuine and the order of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned JMFC,
Vadodara and confirmed in appeal by thel earned
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vadodara, therefore,
on the given set of facts are hereby quashed and set
aside as this court intends, otherwise to secure the ends
of justice as provided under section 482Cr.P.C.
Obviously the order disposing Revision Application
would not have any enforceable effect.”
11. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has also relied upon the
judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of VinayDevanna Nayak vs.
Ryot Seva Sahkari Bank Limited reported in AIR2008 SC 716, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as under :
18. Taking into consideration even the said
provision(Section 147) and the primary object__________
Page9 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026underlying Section 138, in our judgment, there is no
reason to refuse compromise between the parties. We,
therefore,dispose of the appeal on the basis of the
settlement arrived at between the appellant and the
respondent.
19. For the foregoing reasons the appeal deserves to be
allowed and is accordingly allowed by holding that
since the matter has been compromised between the
parties and the amount of Rs.45,000/- has been paid
bythe appellant towards full and final settlement to the
respondent-bank towards its dues, the appellant is
entitled to acquittal. The order of conviction and
sentence recorded by all courts is set aside and he is
acquitted of the charge levelled against him.”
12. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has argued that the law
regarding compounding of offences under the N.I. Act is very clear and is no more
res integra and the offences under the N.I. Act can be compounded even at any
stage of the proceedings. He submits that in terms of the aforesaid law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the parties may be permitted to compound the
offence and the conviction of the petitioner be set aside.
13. Per contra, Mr.M.M.I. Khaleel, the learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) appearing for the State , has vehemently opposed the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and submits that the
Revision Petitioner has already been convicted by the learned trial court and the
conviction order had already been upheld by the Appellate Court in the appeal.
__________
Page10 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026
14. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the
State further submitted that the appeal has been rejected on merit and the Revision
Petitioner was convicted, then where the parties or any one of them can be
permitted to place compromise and to get the order of acquittal from the Court is
the question. He further submitted that the present case is nothing, but a gross
misuse of the process of law and thus sentence cannot be compounded on the basis
of compromise as filed by the parties.
15. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that this Court has
already decided a similar issue vide judgment and order dated 19.09.2025 in
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.875 of 2025 [K.Balachenniappan VsJeyakrishnan]. The
counsel argues that the present revision petitioner’s case is fully covered by the
aforesaid judgment and prays that the present Revision Petition may be disposed
of in the same terms. A copy of the judgment has been placed before the Court for
perusal.
16. I have heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, learned
counsel for the Respondent and learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for the State and perused the materials placed on record.
17. Considering the facts as narrated above, the following question arose
for consideration.
‘Whether the order passed by the Appellate Court
__________
Page11 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026
confirming the conviction of the trial court under section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act can be nullified by the
High Court on the basis of compromise entered between
the parties’.
18. Before answering the aforesaid question as framed, I shall examine the
relevant provision of the B.N.S.S, as well as the Negotiable Instrument Act. I may
extract Section 359 of B.N.S.S., and Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Section 359 B.N.S.S. – Compounding of Offences –
1) The offences punishable under the sections of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 specified in the firsttwo
columns of the Table next following may be compounded
by the persons mentioned in the third column of that
Table:-
2)The offences punishable under the sections of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 specified in the first two
columns of the Table next following may, with the
permission of the Court before which any prosecution
for such offence is pending, be compounded by the
persons mentioned in the third column of that Table:–
3) When an offence is compoundable under this section,
the abetment of such offence or an attempt to commit
such offence (when such attempt is itself an offence) or
where the accused is liable under subsection(5) of
section 3 or section 190 of the BharatiyaNyaya Sanhita,
2023 (45 of 2023), may be compounded in like manner.
(4)(a) When the person who would otherwise be
competent to compound an offence under this
section is a child or of unsound mind, any person
competent to contract on his behalf may, with the
permission of the Court, compound such offence;
__________
Page12 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026
(b) When the person who would otherwise be
competent to compound an offence under this
section is dead, the legal representative, as defined
in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) of
such person may, with the consent of the Court,
compound such offence.
(5) When the accused has been committed for trial
or when he has been convicted and an appeal is
pending,no composition for the offence shall be
allowed without the leave of the Court to which he
is committed, or, as the case may be, before which
the appeal is to be heard.
(6) A High Court or Court of Session acting in the
exercise of its powers of revision under section 442
may allow any person to compound any offence
which such person is competent to compound under
this section
(7) No offence shall be compounded if the accused
is, by reason of a previous conviction, liable either
to enhanced punishment or to a punishment of a
different kind for such offence.
(8) The composition of an offence under this
section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the
accused with whom the offence has been
compounded.
(9) No offence shall be compounded except as
provided by this section.
Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act:-
Offences to be compoundable.—Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal__________
Page13 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence
punishable under thisAct shall be compoundable.
19. It is well settled that inherent power of the Court can be exercised only
when no other remedy is available to the litigants and nor a specific remedy as
provided by the statute. It is also well settled that if an effective, alternative
remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its inherent power, especially
when the Revision Petitioner may not have availed of that remedy. The power can
be exercised by the High Court to secure the ends of justice, prevent abuse of the
process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under this Sanhita or Act, depending upon the facts of the given case.
This Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same
by exercising its power. These powers are neither limited, nor curtailed by any
other provision of the Sanhita or Act. However, such inherent powers are to be
exercised sparingly and with caution.
20. In the instant case, it is true that the appeal was dismissed and the
conviction and sentence was upheld by the appellate court, but it cannot be lost
sight of the fact that this Court has power to intervene in exercise of its power only
with a view to do the substantial justice or to avoid a miscarriage and the spirit of
compromise arrived at between the parties. This is perfectly justified and legal too.
21. I have considered the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
__________
Page14 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026
Revision Petitioner as well as by the learned Counsel for the State and other
decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and I do not think it necessary to enlist those
decisions which are taken into consideration for the purpose of the present
proceedings.
22. In the instant case, the Revision Petitioner is invoking the inherent
power of this court after dismissal of the appeal confirming his conviction and
sentence. In these circumstances, I have to examine as to whether for entertaining
the aforesaid case, any special circumstances are made out or not, so it can be
legitimately argued and inferred and held that in all cases where the Revision
Petitioner is able to satisfy this Court that there are special circumstances which
can be clearly spelt out subsequent proceeding invoking inherent power of this
court can be modified and cannot be thrown away on that technical argument as to
its sustainability once the contesting parties entered into subsequent compromise.
23. In view of the decisions rendered in the judgment dated 19.09.2025 in
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.875 of 2025 [K.Balachenniappan VsJeyakrishnan] and
taking into account the fact that the parties have settled the dispute amicably by
way of compromise, this Court is of the view that the compounding of the offence
as required to be permitted.
24. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in
terms of Joint Memorandum of Compromise, dated 18.07.2026 arrived at between
__________
Page15 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026
the parties to this litigation out of Court. The impugned judgment passed in
C.A.No.71 of 2022 dated 30.01.2026 by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Erode, confirming the conviction and sentence made in STC.No.488 of
2018, dated 01.04.2022 on the file of Fast Track Court-II at Magisterial Level,
Erode and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in
STC.No.488 of 2018, dated 01.04.2022 stands anulled as this Court intends,
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Revision Petitioner shall be treated as
acquitted on account of compounding of the offence with the
complainant/person affected.
25. In the result,
• The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in terms of Joint
Memorandum of Compromise, dated 18.07.2026. The Joint
Memorandum of Compromise is made as part of the order.
• The impugned conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.71 of
2022, dated 30.01.2026 by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Erode, confirming the conviction and sentence made in
STC.No.488 of 2018, dated 01.04.2022 on the file of the Fast Track
Court – II at Magisterial Level, Erode are hereby modified.
• The conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner by
both the courts below stands anulled.
__________
Page16 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026
• The Revision Petitioner shall be treated as acquitted on account of
compounding of the offence with the complainant/respondent.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
21.07.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MSR
To
1. The II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Erode
2. The Fast Track Court – II at Magisterial Level, Erode
__________
Page17 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.769 of 2026
SHAMIM AHMED J.
MSR
Crl.R.C..No.769 of 2026 &
Crl.M.P.No.6086 of 2026
21-07-2026
__________
Page18 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
