Madras High Court
S.Selvi vs Muthumurugaprabu on 23 September, 2025
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1225 of 2025
S.Selvi,
W/o.Murugan,
D/o.Subbaiah,
D.No.101-1, South Street,
Chinnaramangoundanpatti,
Chinnaovalapuram Post,
Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District. ... Petitioner
vs.
Muthumurugaprabu,
S/o.V.Bose,
D.No.6-1-118, Saneeshwaran Bagavan Temple Street,
Kuchanur,
Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442
of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and allow the above revision
petition and consequently set aside the order of conviction and sentence
imposed on the Petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Uthamapalayam, (FTC), Theni District made in C.C.No.79 of 2020 dated
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025
08.12.2021 as confirmed subsequently by the learned Principal District
and Session Judge, Theni made in C.A.No.09 of 2022 dated 03.06.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jeyakumar
For Respondent : Ms.Mahalakshmi
For Mr.V.Kishore Kumar
*****
ORDER
Heard Mr.B.Jeyakumar, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Ms.Mahalakshmi, learned counsel for Mr.V.Kishore
Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent and also this Court has taken
the assistance of Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side).
2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner
to set aside the order of conviction and sentence imposed on the
Petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, (FTC),
Theni District made in C.C.No.79 of 2020 dated 08.12.2021 as
confirmed subsequently by the learned Principal District and Session
Judge, Theni made in C.A.No.09 of 2022 dated 03.06.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
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 learned
Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, (FTC), Theni District made in
C.C.No.79 of 2020 by the judgment dated 08.12.2021, to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs.4,90,000/-, as compensation
towards the cheque amount to the Respondent in default of payment of
the said compensation amount, to undergo further period of simple
imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial
Court, the Petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.9 of 2022 before
the learned Principal District and Session Judge, Theni.
b) The learned Principal District and Session Judge, Theni
confirming the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Uthamapalayam, (FTC), Theni District in C.C.No.79 of 2020 dated
08.12.2021, dismissed the said Appeal vide order dated 03.06.2025.
Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been
filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
4. When the matter was taken up on 04.09.2025, this Court passed
the following order:
“The present Criminal Revision Petition has
been filed to set aside the order of conviction and
sentence imposed on the petitioner by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam (FTC), Theni
District, made in C.C.No.79 of 2020, dated
08.12.2021.
2.Heard Mr.B.Jeyakumar, learned Counsel for
the petitioner and Ms.Mahalakshmi, learned Counsel
for Mr.V.Kishore Kumar, learned Counsel, accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent.
3.Today, when the matter is being taken up,
Mr.B.Jeyakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has already deposited 20%
of the cheque amount and is ready to deposit the
balance amount within a period of ten days from today
in compliance of the judgment and order in C.C.No.79
of 2020, dated 08.12.2021, passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam (FTC), Theni
District, and he will produce the deposit receipt before
this Court on the next date fixed. He further submits
that the petitioner has neither been arrested nor
surrendered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
4.Ms.Mahalakshmi, learned Counsel, who
accepted notice on behalf of the respondent, submits
that she has no objection to the prayer made by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner.
5.Accordingly, after considering the request
made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this
Court grants ten days and no more further time to the
petitioner to deposit the balance cheque amount into
the bank account of the respondent in compliance of
the judgment and order in C.C.No.79 of 2020, dated
08.12.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Uthamapalayam (FTC), Theni District. In this regard,
he is directed to file an affidavit annexing the details of
such payment along with the copy of the deposit
receipt on the next date fixed.
6.Put up this case “for orders” on 22.09.2025
before the appropriate Bench.”
5. When the matter was taken up on 22.09.2025, this Court passed
the following order:
“On the joint request made by the learned
counsel for the parties that the parties have entered
into compromise, this Court grants time to enable them
to file a Joint Compromise Memo.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
2. Put up this case on 23.09.2025 before
appropriate bench. ”
6. Today, when the matter is being taken up, in compliance with
the orders passed by this Court dated 04.09.2025 and 22.09.2025 in the
present petition, the parties have entered into a Memorandum of
Compromise dated 23.09.2025, 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:
“1. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has
preferred criminal revision petition before this Hon'ble
court against the order of conviction and sentence
imposed on her by the learned JM, Uthamapalayam,
(FTC) Theni District in C.C.No. 79 of 2020 on
08.12.2021 of directing her to undergo an
imprisonment for a period of 1 year R.I. and to pay a
cheque amount of Rs.4,90,000/- to the complainant
within 3 months and in default 3 months S.I. as
confirmed subsequently by the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Theni in the appeal made
in C.A. No. 09 of 2022 on 03.06.2025. Now the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
criminal revision petition is pending before this
Hon'ble court.
2. It is humbly submitted that the above revision
came up for hearing before this Hon'ble court on
04.09.2025 and it was submitted that the petitioner had
already deposited 20% of the of the cheque amount and
was ready to deposit the balance amount within a
period of ten days from today in compliance of the
judgment and order in C.C.No. 79 of 2020 dated
08.12.2021 passed by the learned judicial Magistrate,
Uthamapalayam (FTC), Theni District, and he would
produce the deposit receipt before this court on the
next date fixed. The respondent counsel had no
objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner. This Hon'ble court was pleased to pass
an order to that effect on 04.09.2025 by granting ten
days time to deposit the balance cheque amount in the
respondent bank account.
3. It is humbly submitted that during pendency of
the present criminal revision petition, amicable
settlement was reached between the petitioner and the
respondent for a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/- which is cheque
amount. The 20% of the cheque amount of Rs. 98,000/-
had already been deposited before the learned judicial
Magistrate, Uthamapalayam (FTC), Theni District in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
C.C. No. 79/2020 in view of the order passed by the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Theni in Crl.M.P.
No. 277 of 2022 in C.A. No. 09 of 2022 dated
24.01.2022. In view the settlement arrived and in
compliance of the order of this Hon'ble court dated
04.09.2025, the petitioner has also deposited the
balance cheque amount of Rs. 3,92,000/- on 13.09.2025
in the account of the respondent namely Account No.
048100050301562 of Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.,
Chinnamanur Branch, IFSC code is TMBL0000048
through NEFT transfer from the account of the
petitioner namely Account number 20910100020581 of
Federal Bank, Chinnaovulapuram Branch, IFSC code
is FCRL0002091.
The petitioner has no objection to withdraw the
20% of the deposited amount by the respondent from
the learned judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam
(FTC), Theni District. The receipt of the payment has
also been annexed herewith. Based on this, the
petitioner and the respondent are filing this
compromise memo to allow the above Crl.R.C. (MD)
No. 1225/2025.
4. It is humbly submitted that the case is
amicably settled between the parties and no further
claim of money or any further proceedings will not be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
taken by the parties relating to this subject issue.
5. It is humbly submitted that the above joint
memo has been voluntarily filed by both the parties
without any coercion or compulsion whatsoever. We
both agree to be bound by the orders of this Hon'ble
Court, in the light of this compromise memo.
Hence it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court
may be pleased to record the above joint compromise
memo and dispose the above Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 1225 of
2025 and thus render justice.”
7. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that in
compliance with the orders dated 04.09.2025 and 22.09.2025 passed by
this Court, both the parties have entered into a Joint Memorandum of
Compromise dated 23.09.2025 to the effect that the Criminal Revision
case shall be settled in accordance with the terms and conditions as
contained therein.
8. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that
out of total cheque amount to the tune of Rs.4,90,000/-, the Petitioner
deposited 20% of the cheque amount ie., Rs.98,000/- to the credit of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
C.C.No.79 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Uthamapalayam (FTC), Theni District and in view of the settlement
arrived between the parties and in compliance of the order passed by this
Court dated 04.09.2025, the Revision Petitioner has also deposited the
balance cheque amount to the tune of Rs.3,92,000/- on 13.09.2025 in the
account of the Respondent viz., Account No.048100050301562 of Tamil
Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Chinnamanur Branch, IFSC code is
TMBL0000048 through NEFT transfer from the account of the Revision
Petitioner namely Account No.20910100020581 of Federal Bank,
Chinnaovulapuram Branch, IFSC code is FCRL0002091. Thus, no
amount is due against the Revision Petitioner. A photocopy of the receipt
has been produced before this Court and the same is taken on record.
Further, the Revision Petitioner has no objection to withdraw the 20% of
the cheque amount ie., Rs.98,000/-deposited by the Respondent before
the Trial Court.
9. Ms.Mahalakshmi, learned counsel for the Respondent submits
that the Respondent received the balance cheque amount to the tune of
Rs.3,92,000/- on 13.09.2025 in the account of the Respondent viz.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
Account No.048100050301562 of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited,
Chinnamanur Branch, IFSC code is TMBL0000048 through NEFT
transfer and she submits that the entire amount has been deposited by the
Revision Petitioner and no amount is due against the Revision Petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the Respondent further prays this Court to
direct the Trial Court to permit the respondent to withdraw the amount of
Rs.98,000/-, which was deposited by the petitioner before the trial Court.
11. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits
that the present Revision has been filed on 26.08.2025 before this Court
and on the basis of change in circumstances, as the parties have entered
into 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).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
Irrespective of which stage, the parties are compromising with the kind
leave of this Hon'ble Court.
12. 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 is also deprived of effective justice. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made
before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to
20% of the cheque amount."
13. 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
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'.
14. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
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."
15. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
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."
16. 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.
17. Per contra, Mr.M.Karunanithi, the learned Government
Advocate (Criminal Side) who appeared for the State assisted this Court
in the matter, has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and submits that the Revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
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.
18. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 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.
19. 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 counsel argues that the present revision petitioner's
case is fully covered by the aforesaid judgment and prays that the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
Revision Petition may be disposed of in the same terms. A copy of the
judgment has been placed before the Court for perusal.
20. I have heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner,
learned counsel for the Respondent and learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) appearing for the State and perused the materials placed
on record.
21. 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'.
22. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
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 sub-
section (5) of section 3 or section 190 of the Bharatiya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), may be compounded
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
(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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
Offences to be compoundable.—Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this
Act shall be compoundable.
23. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
24. 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.
25. I have considered the judgments cited by the learned counsel
for the Revision Petitioner as well as by the learned Counsel for the State
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.
26. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
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.
27. 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.
28. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Case is disposed
of in terms of Memorandum of Compromise arrived at between the
parties to this litigation out of Court. The impugned judgment passed in
C.A.No.09 of 2022 dated 03.06.2025 by the learned Principal District
and Session Judge, Theni, confirming the conviction and sentence made
in C.C.No.79 of 2020 dated 08.12.2021 on the file of the learned Judicial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, (FTC), Theni District, are hereby modified.
The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act in C.C.No.79 of 2020 dated 08.12.2021 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.
29. In the result,
● The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in terms of Joint
Memorandum of Compromise dated 23.09.2025.
● The impugned conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.09 of
2022 dated 03.06.2025 by the learned Principal District and
Session Judge, Theni, confirming the conviction and sentence
made in C.C.No.79 of 2020 dated 08.12.2021 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, (FTC), Theni
District , are hereby modified.
● The conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner
by both the courts below stands anulled.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
● The Revision Petitioner shall be treated as acquitted on account of
compounding of the offence with the complainant/respondent.
30. The Respondent is permitted to file an application before the
trial Court for withdrawal of Rs.98,000/-,(Rupees Ninety Eight
Thousand only) which was already deposited by the Petitioner before the
trial Court, within a period of ten days from today and if any such
application is filed by the Respondent within the time stipulated by this
Court, the Trial Court is directed to disburse the said amount to the
respondent, if not already withdrawn, within a period of ten days
thereafter.
Index :Yes / No 23.09.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
Nsr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
To:
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam (FTC),
Theni.
2. The Principal District and Session Judge, Theni,
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Nsr
Order made in
23.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 01:18:47 pm )
