Madras High Court
Y.Sanjay vs K.Karunanidhi on 21 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 835 of 2025
Y.Sanjay ...Petitioner
Vs
K.Karunanidhi ..Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to
set aside the judgment dated 17.04.2025 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil
Court, Chennai in CA.No.6 of 2024 confirming the Judgment dated 22.11.2023
passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track-1, Egmore at Allikulam in
STC.No.4915 of 2022 and to set the petitioner/Accused at liberty.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Ramkumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.L.Muthusamy
ORDER
Heard Mr.K.Ramkumar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and
Mr.L.Muthusamy, learned counsel for the Respondent.
2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside
the judgment passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in CA.No.6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of 2024 dated 17.04.2025 confirming the order passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Fast Track-1, Egmore at Allikulam in STC.No.4915 of 2022 dated
22.11.2023.
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, Fast Track-1, Egmore at Allikulam in STC.No.4915 of
2022 by the Judgment dated 22.11.2023 to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of the cheque
amount being the loss, hardship and the mental agony faced by the
complainant as compensation amount to the Respondent, in default
of payment of the said amount, to one month of simple
imprisonment. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the
Petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.6 of 2024 before the
learned XVIII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
b) The learned First Appellate Court has confirming the judgment
passed by the trial court by dismissing the said Appeal vide order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 17.04.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present CriminalRevision 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 Memorandum of Compromise of Full and
Final Settlement on 20.07.2026. Both parties, on the basis of the Joint Memorandum of
Compromise dated 20.07.2026, have arrived at a settlement and the same has been produced
before this court. The Respondent viz., Y.Sanjay and the petitioner viz., K.Karunanidhi, have
entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise of Full and Final Settlement, dated
20.07.2026 and the same is taken on record and the terms of the Joint Memorandum of
Compromise, dated 20.07.2026 is extracted hereunder:
‘JOINT MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE FILED UNDER SECTION
147 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 READ WITH
SECTION 320 CR.P.C/359 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA
SANHITA’The Revision Petitioner/Accused and Respondent/Complainant herein respectfully
submit as follows:
1. The above revision has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused (Y.Sanjay)
to set aside the judgment dated 17.04.2025 passed by the Hon’ble XVIII
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in CA.No.6 of 2024 confirming the
Judgment dated 22.11.2023 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
Fast Track-1, Egmore at Allikulam in S.T.C.No.4915 of 2022 for offence
committed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging
dishonour of Cheque No.310880 dated 21.02.2022 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
drawn on Indian Overseas Bank Madhavaram Branch, Chennai, sentencing the
accused to undergo 1 year of Simple Imprisonment and directed to pay the
cheque amount as fine within 1 month in default to undergo 3 months of S.I.
2. It is humbly submitted that during the pendency of the above
proceedings, the accused had deposited the entire cheque amount of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) in S.T.C.No.4915 of 2022 on the file of
the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track-1 Egmore at Allikulam).
(i) A sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) vide Receipt
No.05466 dated 18.03.2024 was deposited in pursuant an order dated
23.01.2024 in Crl.OP.No.1076/2024 in C.A.No.6 of 2024.
(ii) A sum of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand only)
vide Receipt No.07513 dated 11.08.2025 was deposited in pursuant an order
dated 23.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.14390/2025 in Crl.A.No.835 of 2025.
3. It is further submitted that the Complainant (K.Karunanidhi) therein
acknowledges that he shall have no further claim whatsoever against the
Accused (Y.Sanjay) in respect of the transaction forming the subject matter of the
above complaint and the Accused (Y.Sanjay) has no objection for the withdrawal
of the aforesaid amount.
4. The parties have amicably settled all their disputes and differences out
of their own free will, without any force, coercion, undue influence or
misrepresentation.
In these circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to record the Memorandum of Joint Compromise filed by the
parties on file and to pass further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper and thus render justice.
5. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that pending Revision, the matter
was settled between the parties, based on the settlement arrived among themselves and both the
parties have entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise of Full and Final Settlement,
dated 20.07.2026, duly signed 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Mr.L. Muthusamy, 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.
7. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the present Revision has
been filed on 06.06.2025 before this Court and on the basis of change in circumstances, as the
parties have entered into Joint 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 offenceunder 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 tohttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
(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 underhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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, Govt. Advocate (crl.side), the learned
counsel for the Respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
14. The learned counsel for the Respondent 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 perused the materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(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:-
Offences to be compoundable.—Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 ofhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21. 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 the
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in terms
of Joint Memorandum of Compromise arrived at between the parties to this litigation
out of Court. The impugned judgment passed in C.A.No.6 of 2024 dated 17.04.2025
by the learned XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the
conviction and sentence made in STC.No.4915 of 2022 dated 22.11.2023 on the file
of Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track-1, Egmore, Allikulam and sentence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in STC.No. 4915 of 2022 dated
22.11.2023 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 of Full and Final Settlement, dated
20.07.2026.
● The impugned conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.6 of
2024, dated 17.04.2025 by the learned XVIII Additional City Civil
Court, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence made in
STC.No.4915 of 2022, dated 22.11.2023 on the file of the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track-1, Egmore, Allikulam are
hereby modified.
● The conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioners
by both the courts below stands anulled.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
● 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
Internet :Yes / No
msr/gv
To:
1. The XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai
2. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track-1, Egmore at Allikulam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SHAMIM AHMED J.
MSR/GV
CRL RC No.835 of 2025
21.07.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
