Madras High Court
K.Kothandan vs K.Murugan on 30 July, 2026
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
K.Kothandan, S/o.Late Kaalaisingam,
No.6/5, Perumal Koil Street, Pallikuppam,
Tiruverkadu Post, Chennai-600 077.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
K.Murugan, S/o.Krishnan, No.2/20, Natarajan
Street, Anna Nagar, Thandalam, Chennai-600 077.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:- To call for the records relating to the order, dated 23.04.2024, passed
in C.A.No.115/2023 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Thiruvallur at Poonamallee, confirming the order, 09.03.2023, passed in the
STC.No.1185 of 2020, by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court,
Poonamallee and set aside the same
For Petitioner(s): MR.K.A.Mariappan
For Respondent(s): MR.KUMAR RAJAN
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgement of conviction
and sentence, dated 23.04.2024, passed in C.A.No.115/2023 by the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee,
confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence, 09.03.2023, passed
in the STC.No.1185 of 2020, by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track
Court, Poonamallee and set aside the same.
__________
Page1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
2. The facts of the case are as follows:-
(a) The Revision Petitioner/Accused was running monthly chit groups. The
Respondent/ complainant had joined the chit group of Rs.2,00,000/- and
he had paid monthly subscriptions upto September 2020, but the Revision
Petitioner had failed to pay the chit amount. Hence, the Respondent had
filed a complaint in STC.No.1195 of 2020, for the offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the Revision Petitioner,
before the Trial Court, in respect of dishonour of a cheque, dated
21.09.2020, for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, issued by the Respondent.
(b) Before the Trial Court, on the side of the Complainant, PW.1 was
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked and on the side of the
Accused, DW.1 was examined and Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were marked. By
the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court,
dated 09.03.2023, the Revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced
for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation, to the Respondent, within thirty days, in
default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.
(c) In the appeal filed by the Revision Petitioner, by the impugned judgement
of conviction and sentence, dated 23.04.2024, the lower appellate court
had confirmed the judgement of conviction and sentence of the Trial
Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision
__________
Page2 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
Petitioner/Accused, seeking the relief, as stated above.
3. This Court Heard Mr.K.A.Mariappan, the learned counsel for the Revision
Petitioner and Mr.Kumar Rajan, the learned counsel for the Respondent.
4. During the pendency of the present Criminal Revision Case before this
Court, the parties have entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise,
dated 30.07.2026, which is taken on record and it reads as under:-
“The counsel for the above named petitioner and the respondent
respectfully submits as follows:
1. The above Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the
judgment dated 09.03.2023 passed in S.T.C. No.1185 of 2020 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court,
Poonamallee, which was confirmed by the judgment dated
23.04.2024 in C.A. No.115 of 2023 on the file of the learned II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee.
2. During the pendency of the above Criminal Revision Petition, the
parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences out
of their own free will, without any force, or coercion and have
agreed to compound the offence in terms of Section 147 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. In terms of the settlement, the Revision Petitioner has this day
paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) by way of cash
to the respondent, who hereby acknowledges the receipt of the said
amount to his full satisfaction.
4. The parties further agree that a sum of Rs.1,14,212/- (Rupees One
Lakh Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Twelve only) lying to
the credit of S.T.C. No.1185 of 2020 in the form of a Fixed Deposit
pursuant to the orders passed by the 1st appellate Court at the time
of admission of the first appeal in CA No.115/2023. The respondent
shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount by filing appropriate
petitions before the Trial Court and the revision petitioner
undertakes to extend his full cooperation by signing all necessary
affidavits, applications or other documents that may be required for
facilitating the release of the said amount in favour of the__________
Page3 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024respondent.
5. The revision petitioner has today handed over to the respondent a
photocopy of the Fixed Deposit Receipt relating to the aforesaid
amount.
6. Upon receipt of the aforesaid amounts, the Respondent
acknowledges that he has received the entire settlement amount in
full and final satisfaction of his claim and has no further claim
whatsoever against the revision petitioner arising out of the cheque
transaction which is the subject matter of the above proceedings.
7. The petitioner and the respondent therefore jointly pray that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to record this Joint Memo of
Compromise, permit the parties to compound the offence under
Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and set aside
the judgments passed in S.T.C. No.1185 of 2020 dated 09.03.2023,
confirmed in C.A. No.115 of 2023 dated 23.04.2024, acquit the
Revision Petitioner of the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and consequently allow the above
Criminal Revision Case and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the 30th day of July, 2026.”
5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that during
the pendency of this Criminal Revision Case before this Court, the parties
have entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise, dated 30.07.2026
to the effect that the Criminal Revision Case shall be settled, in
accordance with the terms and conditions, as contained therein.
6. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further submitted that
in terms of the said Joint Memorandum of Compromise, today, the
Revision Petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Respondent,
who has also acknowledged the receipt the said amount and that the parties
have further agreed that the Respondent is entitled to withdraw a sum of
__________
Page4 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
Rs.1,14, 212/-, deposited by the Revision Petitioner before the Trial Court,
for which, the Revision Petitioner shall extend his full cooperation, by
signing all necessary documents and thus, no amount is due against the
Revision Petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that today, the
Respondent has received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Revision
Petitioner and that the Revision Petitioner has agreed to extend his full
cooperation for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.1,14,212/- deposited by
the Revision Petitioner before this Trial Court and thus, no amount is due
against the Revision Petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further submitted that
on the basis of change in circumstances, the parties have entered into a
Joint Memorandum of Compromise and hence, the learned counsel prayed
this Court to compound the offence and to acquit the Revision Petitioner.
9. 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 of Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein in para 21, it was pleased to
observe 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__________
Page5 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024unduly 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 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.”
10. The 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
__________
Page6 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
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.
(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 Chapter XVII 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 of imprisonment, the Court has
jurisdiction under Section 357(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 this
approach, prison sentence of more than one year may not 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 dishonour of cheque, it is unnecessary for the Magistrate to
__________
Page7 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
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 143 becomes necessary, where sentence of one year may
have to be awarded and compensation under Section 357(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’.
11. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further has relied upon the
judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Kripal Singh Pratap Singh
Ori vs. Salvinder Kaur Hardip Singh reported at 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 482
Cr.P.C. Obviously the order disposing Revision Application would
not have any enforceable effect.”
12. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has also relied upon the
judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak
vs. Ryot Seva Sahkari Bank Limited reported at AIR 2008 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.
__________
Page8 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
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 by the 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.”
13. The 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 Vs Jeyakrishnan].
The learned 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.
14. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further argued that the
law regarding compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments
Act is very clear and is no more res-integra and that the offences under the
Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded, even at any stage of the
proceedings. The learned counsel 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 Revision Petitioner be
set aside.
15. The learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that in view of the
said Joint Memo of Compromise, entered into between the parties and the
matter has been settled amicably between the parties, the Respondent has
__________
Page9 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
no objection for compounding the offence and the parties may be
permitted to compound the offence and the conviction of the Revision
Petitioner may be set aside.
16. This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent and also perused
the entire 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 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, it is pertinent to
examine the relevant provisions of the BNSS as well as the Negotiable
Instrument Act, namely, Section 359 of BNSS and Section 147 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, which read as under:-
Section 359 of BNSS:- 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 men-
tioned 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 be-
fore which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be com-
pounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that
Table:-
__________
Page10 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
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 sub section (5) of section 3 or section 190 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), may be compoun-
ded 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.
(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 :’
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this
Act shall be compoundable.”
__________
Page11 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
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 Code 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 Code 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 and the other decisions of the Honourable Supreme
__________
Page12 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
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 Vs Jeyakrishnan] 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. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the Joint
Memo of Compromise, this Court is of the view that the dispute between
the parties has been amicably resolved. Section 147 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act provides that offences punishable under the said Act shall
be compoundable. Since the Respondent/Complainant has voluntarily
__________
Page13 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
agreed for settlement and has received the entire amount agreed between
the parties, there is no impediment for this Court to permit compounding of
the offence in the interest of justice.
25. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, in terms of
Memorandum of Compromise, arrived at between the parties to this
litigation out of Court.
26. The impugned conviction and sentence made in the judgement of
conviction and sentence, dated 23.04.2024, passed in C.A.No.115 of 2023
by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at
Poonamallee, confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence,
09.03.2023, passed in the STC.No.1185 of 2020, by the Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Poonamallee, are hereby modified.
27. The conviction and sentence made under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act in STC.No.1185 of 2020 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.
28. The Respondent is permitted to file appropriate application before the Trial
Court for withdrawal of the aforesaid amount, deposited by the Revision
Petitioner before the Trial Court, within a period of three weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order and if any such application is filed by
the Respondent, the Trial Court is directed to release the aforesaid amount
__________
Page14 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
in favour of the Respondent, within a period of three weeks thereafter.
29. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court
concerned for its compliance and information, immediately.
30-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SRCM
To
1. II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Poonamallee
__________
Page15 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
SRCM
CRL RC No. 1091 of 2024
30-07-2026
__________
Page16 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
