Madras High Court
P.Parthasarathy vs R.Sundari on 16 October, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
CRL OP No. 28217 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
CRL OP No. 28217 of 2025
P.Parthasarathy
Petitioner(s)
Vs
R.Sundari
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS pleased to
compound the sentence passed in S.T.C.No.19 of 2021 dated 28.11.2022,
confirmed in Crl.A.No.152 of 2022 on the file of Learned I Additional District
Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur dated 14.08.2023 and confirmed in Crl.R.C.No.36 of
2024 dated 31.01.2025 by this Court and acquit the petitioner and thus render
justice
For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Dinesh
For Respondent: Mr.D.Ananthapadmanabhan
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to
compound the sentence in STC No.19 of 2021 by the Fast Track Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 12:57:41 pm )
Magistrate Level at Thiruvallur dated 28.11.2022, confirmed in Criminal Appeal
No.152 of 2022 by the learned I Additional District Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur
dated 14.08.2023 and confirmed in Crl.RC.No.36 of 2024 dated 31.01.2025 by
this Court and acquit and Petitioner/Accused on the basis of the compromise
entered into between the petitioner /accused and the respondent / complainant.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent
had filed a cheque case against the petitioner in S.T.C.No.19 of 2021 before the
Fast Track Court Magistrate Level at Thiruvallur. The learned Magistrate after
due enquiry found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act and by judgement dated 28.11.2022, convicted and
sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay the
compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-within a period of two months from the date of
judgment, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. The
compensation amount was ordered to be paid to the complainant under Section
255(2) of Cr.P.C., Challenging the said Judgment and Conviction, the petitioner
preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2022 on the file of learned I
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 12:57:41 pm )
Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur and the same was dismissed by Judgment
dated 14.08.2023 by confirming the Judgment of the trial court.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as
against the Judgment of dismissal of appeal, the petitioner filed a revision
petition before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.36 of 2024 and this Court by order
dated 31.01.2025 dismissed the Revision petition. Now, the the petitioner has
paid the full and final settlement to the respondent and has filed an affidavit to
that effect and seeks for compounding the offence.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent / defacto complainant
and the defacto complainant are present and the defacto complainant has also
filed an affidavit indicating that she has received the amount and has no
objection for compounding the offence.
5. The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether
this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving compoundable offences
during the post conviction stage against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Ramgopal and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in
(2022) 14 Supreme Court Cases 531 has given sufficient guidelines that must be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 12:57:41 pm )
taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 of Cr.P.C, to quash the offences 'compoundable' during the post conviction stage.
One important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine
the nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the society and conduct of the
accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence. The crime
in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding
public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences against the society
with overriding public interest even if it gets settled between the parties, cannot be
quashed by this Court.
6. In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in
nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner and the respondent and quashing the
proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful
purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. Further, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Bharthi Devi v. State of Telengana reported in (2024)
10 SCC 384, has held that the offences, which overwhelmingly and predominantly
bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial,
partnership or such like transactions, where the wrong is basically to the victim, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 12:57:41 pm )
the offender and the victim have settled all the disputes between them amicably, can
be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. In such view of the matter, the affidavits filed by the petitioner and the
respondent are taken on file. Since the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act is a compoundable one and this Court also in
various other cases has held that even after conviction, the offence can be
compounded on payment of amount, if the parties are willing to compound,
therefore, the sentence passed in S.T.C.No.19 of 2021 by the Fast Track Court
Magistrate Level at Tiruvallur dated 28.11.2022 which was confirmed in
Criminal Appeal no. 152 of 2022 by the learned I Additional District Sessions
Judge, Tiruvallur dated 14.08.2023 and also confirmed by this Court in
Crl.R.C.No.36 of 2024 dated 31.01.2025 is set aside on the basis of the
compromise entered into between the petitioner / accused and the respondent /
defacto complainant.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. At this stage, it
is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the
entire amount has already been settled, the deposit made by the petitioner before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 12:57:41 pm )
the trial court while suspending the sentence by the appellate court, may be
ordered to be refunded to the petitioner. Accordingly, on proper application
before the concerned court, the 20% of the deposit amount made by the
petitioner shall be refunded to him.
16-10-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssd
To
1. The I Additional District Sessions
Judge, Tiruvallur
2. The Fast Track Court Magistrate
Level, Thiruvallur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 12:57:41 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR J.
ssd
CRL OP No. 28217 of
16-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 12:57:41 pm )
