Madras High Court
S.P.Maharajan vs M.Masilamani on 21 July, 2026
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025
S.P.Maharajan
S/o.Pandiyaraj,
Shifa Leather and Salt Merchant,
No.19, Trust Square Street,
Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
M.Masilamani
S/o.Muthukaruppan,
No.16/27, Vadivudaiamman Street,
Lakshmiamman Nagar,
Erukkancherry,
Kodungaiyur Post,
Chennai - 600 118.
..Respondent(s)
Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS,
2023 to set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble XV Additional District Judge,
City Civil Court at Chennai dated 13.03.2025 in C.A.No.114/2024 and
confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court Metropolitan
Magistrate, Fas Track Court No.1 at Allikulam Egmore, Chennai in
STC.No.5616/2022 on 23.01.2024 for the offence punishable under sec.138 of
the N.I.Act accused is sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and pass such
further orders.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. K.M.Balaji
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajesh
__________
Page1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025
ORDER
Heard Mr.K.M.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and
Mr.R.Rajesh, learned counsel for the Respondent.
2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set
aside the order passed by the Hon’ble XV Additional District Judge, City Civil
Court at Chennai dated 13.03.2025 in C.A.No.114/2024 and confirming the
conviction and sentence passed by the trial court Metropolitan Magistrate, Fas
Track Court No.1 at Allikulam Egmore, Chennai in STC.No.5616/2022 on
23.01.2024 for the offence punishable under sec.138 of the N.I.Act accused is
sentenced to one year simple imprisonment.
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 Metropolitan Magistrate
made in STC. No.5616 of 2022 by the judgment dated 23.01.2024, to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year with fine of double the cheque amount as
contemplated under Section 138 of NI Act in default of payment of the said
amount, to undergo further period of simple imprisonment for three months.
__________
Page2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025
Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the Petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal
in C.A.No.114 of 2024 before the learned XV-Additional District and Sessions
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
b) The learned XV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, City Civil
Court, Chennai confirming the judgment passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate
in STC. No.5616 of 2022 dated 23.01.2024, dismissed the said Appeal vide
order dated 13.03.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision
Petition has been filed.
4. Today, when the matter is being taken up, the petitioner viz.,
S.P.Maharajan and the respondent viz., M.Masilamani, have entered into a
Memorandum of Compromise dated 26.02.2026, which is taken on record and
as per the terms of the Compromise, the following conditions were laid down
between the parties which are quoted as under:
“3. The petitioner submit that during the pendency of criminal
revision pending before this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner approached
the respondent for compromise as out of Court settlement and the
same has been agreed by the respondent and agreed for the cheque
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as per the settlement. The petitioner a sum of
Rs.1,20,000/- settled by way of DD No.130202 dated 07.04.2025 and
the original deposit receipt No.05605 dated 12.04.2024 for a sum of
Rs.80,000/- to the respondent on 07.04.2025. The petitioner has no__________
Page3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025objection taking the deposit amount Rs.80,000/- to the credit of FTC-1
Metropolitan Magistrate Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai-8. ‘’
5. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that both the
parties, who have entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated
26.02.2026, are present before this Court, to the effect that the Criminal
Revision case shall be settled in accordance with the terms and conditions as
contained therein.
6. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner prays this Court that, the
has entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise with the respondent on
26.02.2026, the Revision Petitioner may be released from jail without imposing
any condition.
7. The 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 and has no objection if the
Petitioner is released from jail
8. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the
present Revision has been filed on 02.06.2026 before this Court and on the basis
of change in circumstances, as the parties have entered into Memorandum of
__________
Page4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025
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.
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 N.I. 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 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__________
Page5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025is 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. Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner also submitted that in the
case of M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another vs. Kanchan
__________
Page6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025
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.
(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.
__________
Page7 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025
(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 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 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. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further relied upon the
judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Kripal Singh Pratap Singh Ori
__________
Page8 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025
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 482 Cr.P.C. Obviously the order disposing Revision
Application would not have any enforceable effect.”
12. 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 in 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. 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__________
Page9 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025acquittal. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by all
courts is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against
him.”
13. 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.
14. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner further 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 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.
15. I have heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, learned
counsel for the Respondent and perused the materials placed on record.
16. Considering the facts as narrated above, the following question arose
for consideration.
__________
Page10 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025
‘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’.
17. 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:–
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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023),
may be compounded in like manner.
(4)(a) When the person who would otherwise be
__________
Page11 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025competent 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:-
Offences to be compoundable.—Notwithstanding anything
__________
Page12 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.
18. 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.
19. 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.
__________
Page13 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025
20. I have considered the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
Revision Petitioner as well as by the learned Counsel for the respondent 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.
21. 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.
22. 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
__________
Page14 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025
offence as required to be permitted.
23. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Case is allowed in terms
of Memorandum of Compromise arrived at between the parties to this litigation
out of Court. The impugned judgment passed by the Hon’ble XV Additional
District Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai dated 13.03.2025 in
C.A.No.114/2024 and confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the
trial court Metropolitan Magistrate, Fas Track Court No.1 at Allikulam Egmore,
Chennai in STC.No.5616/2022 on 23.01.2024 is modified. The conviction and
sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in STC. No.5616
of 2022 dated 23.01.2024 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.
24. In the result,
● The Criminal Revision Case is allowed of in terms of Joint
Memorandum of Compromise dated 26.02.2026.
● The impugned conviction and sentence passed by the Hon’ble XV
Additional District Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai dated 13.03.2025 in
C.A.No.114/2024 and confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the
trial court Metropolitan Magistrate, Fas Track Court No.1 at Allikulam Egmore,
Chennai in STC.No.5616/2022 on 23.01.2024 are hereby modified.
__________
Page15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025
● The conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner by
both the courts below stands anulled.
● The Revision Petitioner shall be treated as acquitted on account of
compounding of the offence with the complainant/respondent. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21-07-2026
rli
To
1. The XV Additional District Judge,
City Civil Court at Chennai.
2. The Metropolitan Magistrate,
Fas Track Court No.1
Allikulam Egmore, Chennai
__________
Page16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
rli
CRL RC No. 932 of 2025
21-07-2026
__________
Page17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
