Supreme Court – Daily Orders
S. Subramaniam vs Murugesan on 24 March, 2026
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4444 of 2025)
S. SUBRAMANIAM APPELLANT
VERSUS
MURUGESAN RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The parties are also present before the Court through video
conferencing and have been identified by their respective counsel.
4. The appellant is accused in a case filed under the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the “N.I. Act”) by the
respondent-complainant alleging non-encashment of three post-dated
cheques issued by the appellant in favour of the respondent,
totalling a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand).
5. Upon trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to
simple imprisonment of one year along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand) and in default, simple imprisonment of three
Signature Not Verified
months under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the Trial Court.
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2026.03.28
14:46:53 IST
Reason:
However, the Appellate Court acquitted the appellant from the
charges.
2
6. The matter was taken to the High Court, where the High Court
vide impugned order dated 11.07.2024 has set aside the order of the
Appellate Court and confirmed the conviction of the appellant under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation of
Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand) to the complainant-
respondent and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months. The present appeal arises out of the said
impugned order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in Crl.A. No.486 of 2018.
7. Learned counsel for the parties had, on the earlier occasion,
indicated that the parties have settled the matter and a joint
application being I.A. No.258119 of 2025 has been filed bringing on
record the joint compromise memo dated 06.10.2025. The same reads
as under:-
“JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO
1. This Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4444 of 2025 has
been filed by the Petitioner/Accused herein to challenge the
judgment and final order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. A. No. 486 of 2018.
The Hon’ble High Court, by allowing the Respondent’s appeal,
reversed the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Erode, in C.A. No. 39 of 2018 dated 25.06.2018, and upheld
the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act passed by the Learned Trial Court.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The Petitioner and the Respondent are colleagues at
Chikkaiah Naicker College, the petitioner used to borrow a loan
from the Respondent on occasions and repaid the same well in
time. As a security for the said loan the Respondent has taken
two security cheque bearing Nos. 814345 & 814346 of Indian
Overseas Bank, Sampath Nagar Branch, Erode. When these cheques
were presented for collection by the Respondent for collection
through his bankers viz., Indian Overseas Bank, Sampath Nagar
Branch, Erode on 15.05.2008, these cheques were dishonored for
the reason “Insufficient Funds” on 16.05.2008. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed a criminal complaint in C.C.No.519 of 2008
3
before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode, under Section 200
Cr.P.C against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Erode, in its
judgment and order dated 18.01.2018 passed in Calendar Case No.
519/2018, has convicted the Petitioner for an offense under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments and sentenced the
petitioner to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
5,000, with a default sentence of three months of simple
imprisonment.
4. Aggrieved by this conviction, the Petitioner herein has
filed an appeal in Crl.A. No. 39 of 2018 before the Learned II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode. The Learned
Session Court, in its judgment and order dated June 25, 2018,
acquitted the Petitioner by setting aside the Trial Court’s
judgment and ordering the repayment of the Rs. 5,000 fine.
5. The Respondent herein has challenged the acquittal order by
filing Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 2018 before the High Court of
Judicature at Madras. After hearing both parties, the High Court,
through its Impugned Judgment and Final Order dated July 11, 2024,
allowed the appeal. The High Court was pleased to set aside the
Sessions Court’s acquittal, thereby reinstating the original
conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate.
6. Hence the petitioner herein has filed the present Special
Leave Petition before this Hon’ble Court on 29.01.2025. This
Hon’ble Court vide order dated 24.03.2025, was pleased to “condone
the delay and issue notice only on the stand taken by the
petitioner would repay the amount as was indicated in the cheque”.
7. In compliance with the aforementioned order, the Petitioner
has approached the Respondent/De-facto Complainant for an amicable
settlement. The parties have mutually agreed to settle the matter
for an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/-. Accordingly, the Petitioner has
paid the entire amount to the Respondent on September 17, 2025.
This Joint Memo of Compromise is being signed by both parties to
formally record the settlement.
8. It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India to compound the offence
allegedly committed by the Petitioner and, consequently, acquit
the Petitioner, in the interest of justice.”
8. Basically, the joint compromise memo records that the
appellant-accused has paid a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs
Ten Thousand) to the respondent-complainant.
9. Upon a query being made to the parties, the said transaction
is admitted by them. On a further query of the Court to the
4
respondent, as to whether, he is agreeable to compounding the
offence, the answer is in the affirmative.
10. Accordingly, in view of there being a settlement between the
parties and Section 147 of the N.I. Act providing for compounding,
the complaint case bearing C.C. No.519 of 2008 stands compounded.
The appellant is discharged from the said case. I.A. No.258119 of
2025 is allowed.
11. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
……………………..………………………………………………J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[R. MAHADEVAN]
NEW DELHI
24th MARCH, 2026
5
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4444/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-07-2024
in CRLA No.486/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras]
S. SUBRAMANIAM Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MURUGESAN Respondent(s)
[TO BE TAKEN UP AT THE TOP OF THE BOARD]
(IA No. 47982/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T
IA No.258119/2025 – MISC. DOCUMENT/ OTHER/JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO)
Date : 24-03-2026 This matter was called for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. C. Paramasivam, Adv.
Mr. Y. Arunagiri, Adv.
Mr. R. Sudhakaran, AOR
Mrs. Shalini Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR
Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Adv.
Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv.
Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv.
Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv.
Mr. Alagiri K., Adv.
Mr. Shivansh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek S., Adv.
Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Adv.
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6
2. Leave granted.
3. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAPNA BISHT) (ANJALI PANWAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
[ad_1]
Source link
