Madras High Court
Murali vs J.Dillibabu on 22 July, 2026
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 2189 of 2025
Murali
.. Petitioners
Vs
J. Dillibabu ..Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under sections 438 r/w.442 of BNSS, 2023 to allow
the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the judgment dated 11.07.2025
passed in Crl.A.No.643 of 2024 on the file of XX Addl. Sessions City Civil court,
Chennai, confirming the judgment dated 01.08.2024 passed in STC.No.3105 of
2023 on the file of the XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Vigneshwaran
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
For Respondent(s): Mr. K.A.Mariappan
ORDER
Heard Mr.C.Vigneshwaran, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Mr.K.A.Mariappan, learned counsel for the Respondent and
Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for
the State.
2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set
aside the judgment passed by the XX Addl. Sessions City Civil Court, Chennai in
C.A.No.643 of 2024, dated 11.07.2025 confirming the order passed by the
learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in STC.No.3105 of
2023, dated 01.08.2024
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
XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai made in
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025STC.No.3105 of 2023 by the judgment dated 01.08.2024, to
undergo SI for 3 months and to pay the cheque amount of
Rs.4,85,000/- to the complainant, in default, to undergo SI for 15
days. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the Petitioner
filed a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.643 of 2024 before the
learned XX Addl. Sessions City Civil Court, Chennai.
b) The learned First Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment
passed by the trial court by dismissing the said Appeal vide order
dated 01.08.2024. 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 Settlement
Agreement on 10.03.2026. On 29.01.2026, when the matter is taken up for
hearing, at the request of both parties, matter was referred before the mediation,
where, on the basis of the Settlement Agreement, dated 10.03.2026, the matter
was reported to be settled and the mediation report dated 10.03.2026, to that
effect has also been sent to the Court along with Settlement Agreement dated
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
10.03.2026. The Respondent viz., J. Dillibabu and the petitioner viz.,Murali have
entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 10.03.2026 and the same is taken on
record and the terms of the above said Settlement Agreement is extracted
hereunder:
‘SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
‘This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into on 10.03.2026
between, Murali, S/o.Mani, aged 49 years, residing at No.10/35, Annamalai
Nagar, 2nd Street, Mettupalayam, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033 1st
party.
And
J. Dillibabu, S/o.Jayachandran, aged 47 years, residing at No.38/4,
5 Street, Kambar Nagar, Chennai 600 082 – 2nd Party.
th
WHEREAS
1. Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto. A
complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by
the 2nd Party herein in STC No.3105 of 2023 before the XXVI Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Egmore,Chennai, in respect of the dishonour of Cheque
No.585609 dated 24.02.2023. The said case ended in the conviction of the
1st Party herein by Judgment dated 01.08.2024.
2. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the 1st party herein preferred an appeal
in Crl.A.No.643 of 2024 before the XX Addl. Sessions Court, City Civil
Court, Chennai. By judgment dated 11.07.2025, the said appeal was
dismissed.
3. Thereafter, the 1st Party herein preferred a criminal Revision before the
Hon’ble Madras High Court challenging the dismissal of the above
Criminal Appeal in Crl.R.C.No.2189 of 2025. The said Criminal Revision
Petition was referred to Mediation/Conciliation by order dated 29.01.2026.
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
4. The Parties herein mutually agreed that Mr.Vijayakumar would act as the
Mediator/Conciliator for resolving the disputes between them.
5. Several meetings were held during the process of Mediation/Conciliation
on 09.02.2026 and 19.02.2026. With the assistance of the
Mediator/Conciliator, the Parties voluntarily arrived at an amicable
settlement resolving all disputes and differences between them in respect of
the proceedings pending before the Courts.
6. The Parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily, of their
own free will and consent, entered into this Settlement Agreement in the
presence of the Mediator/Conciliator.
7. The following Settlement has been arrived at between the parties:
A. The 1st Party herein agrees to pay a total sum of Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees
Three Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only) to the 2nd Party herein.
B. The 1st Party herein has taken a demand Draft for a sum of rs.1,75,000/-
(Rupees one lakh seventy five thousand only) vide DD No.348261 dated
06.03.2026 drawn in favour of the 2nd party herein, and the same has been
received by the 2nd party. The 1st party further agrees to pay the balance sum
of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty Thousand only) on or before
10.04.2026.
C. Apart from the above amounts, the 1st Party herein has already deposited
a sum of Rs.97,000/- on 24.10.2024 which is lying to the credit of STC
No.3105 of 2023. The 2nd party herein is entitled to withdraw the said
amount in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the 2nd party herein shall receive a total sum of Rs.4,22,000/-
(Rupees four lakhs twenty two thousand only) in full and final settlement of
the disputes between the parties.
D. The 2nd party hereby agrees and undertakes to withdraw the suit filed
against the 1st party in O.S.No.5380 of 2025 pending on the file of the XX
assistant City Civil court, Chennai, which arises out of the same subject
matter that will be settled between the parties through Lok Adalat for the
purpose of refund of court fee paid in the suit by the 2nd party herein.
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
E. By signing this Agreement, the Parties hereto declare that they have no
further claims or demands against each other in respect of Crl.R.C.No.2189
of 2025 pending before the Hon’ble Madras High Court and O.
S.No.5380 of 2025 pending before the XX assistant City Civil Court,
Chennai, and that all disputes and differences in this regard have been
amicably settled through the process of Mediation/Conciliation.’
5. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that pending
Revision, the matter has been referred to mediation before Tamil Nadu Mediation
and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras, wherein, the matter was settled
between the parties, based on the settlement arrived among themselves and both
the parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement, dated 10.03.2026 duly
singed by the parties and their respective counsels who are present before this
Court and to that effect, the Criminal Revision case shall be disposed of in
accordance with the terms and conditions as contained therein.
6. Mr.K.A. Mariappan, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the
entire amount has been deposited by the Revision Petitioner and no amount is due
against the Revision Petitioner. He further submits that the Respondent is not
interested in continuing the case against the Revision Petitioner.
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
7. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the
present Revision has been filed on 26.08.2022 before this Court and on the basis
of change in circumstances, as the parties have entered into a Settlement
Agreement, 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 offenceunder section 138 N.I. Act wherein in para 21, it was pleased
to observed as under :
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025“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:
(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 condition8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025that 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 XVII 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.
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
(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 proceedings. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
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 the learned 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 underlying
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.
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
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.
12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
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 dated19.09.2025 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.
13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
17. Considering the facts as narrated above, the following question arose
for consideration.
‘Whether the order passed by the Appellate Court 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 first two
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:–
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
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;
(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.
15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
(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 Procedure,
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
16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
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
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
17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
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 Settlement Agreement, dated 10.03.2026, arrived at between the parties
to this litigation out of Court. The impugned judgment passed in C.A.No.643 of
2024, dated 11.07.2025 by the learned XX Addl. Sessions City Civil Court,
Chennai confirming the conviction and sentence made in STC.No.3105 of 2023,
dated 01.08.2024 on the file of XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai
and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in
18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
STC.No.3105 of 2023, dated 01.08.2024 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
Settlement Agreement, dated 10.03.2026. The Settlement
Agreement is made as part of the order.
● The impugned conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.643
of 2024, dated 11.07.2025 by the learned XX Addl. Sessions
City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the conviction and
sentence made in STC.No.3105 of 2023, dated 01.08.2024 on
the file of XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai,
are hereby modified.
● The conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision
Petitioner by both the courts below stands anulled.
19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
● 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.
22.07.2026
Index :Yes / No
Internet :Yes / No
msr
To:
1. The XX Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
2. The XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.2189 of 2025
SHAMIM AHMED J.
MSR
CRL RC No. 2189 of 2015
22.07.2026
21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
