Madras High Court
N.Santhana Vinoji vs D.John Irudhaya Kennadi on 24 September, 2025
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1295 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1295 of 2025
and
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.13553 of 2025
N.Santhana Vinoji,
Owner of Nehru Tiles,
S/o.Nehru,
D.No.122B/3, Radhapuram Road,
Valliyoor Post, Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ... Petitioner
vs.
D.John Irudhaya Kennadi,
S/o.Devasagayam,
160/5, Anthoniyar Koil Street,
South Kallikulam Post,
Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli 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 judgment passed by the
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1295 of 2025
I-Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli District in C.A.No.
27 of 2024 dated 16.12.2024, confirming the order passed in C.C.No.87
of 2023 dated 16.02.2024 by the Additional District Munsif at Valliyoor.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Cenil
For Respondent : Mr.Pratap Sudharsan
*****
ORDER
Heard Mr.G.Cenil, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Mr.Pratap Sudharsan, 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 judgment passed by the I-Additional District and Sessions
Court, Tirunelveli District, in C.A.No.27 of 2024 dated 16.12.2024
confirming the order passed by the Additional District Munsif at
Valliyoor in C.C.No.87 of 2023 dated 16.02.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 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 Additional
District Munsif, Valliyoor made in C.C.No.87 of 2023 by the judgment
dated 16.02.2024, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 ½ years and to
pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-, being the cheque amount to the Respondent
in default of payment of the said amount, to undergo further period of
simple imprisonment for four months. Aggrieved by the order of the
Trial Court, the Petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.27 of 2024
before the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
b) The learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli confirming the judgment passed by the District Munsif,
Valliyoor in C.C.No.87 of 2023 dated 16.02.2024, dismissed the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
Appeal vide order dated 16.12.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present
Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.
4. Today, when the matter is being taken up, the Respondent viz.,
D.John Irudaya Kennedi/1st Party and the wife of the Petitioner viz.,
Christ/2nd Party, have entered into a Memorandum of Compromise dated
11.09.2025, 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. The 1st party who is the complainant, is ready
and willing to receive the amount due to him from the
husband of the 2nd party.
2. As part of settlement, the 1st party received
Rs.50,000/- on 06.09.2025 as initial payment from the
2nd party for and on behalf of her husband.
3. As per the oral agreement, the 2nd party is
handing over the remaining amount today on
11.09.2025 in the hands of the 1st party, for and on
behalf of her husband.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
4. Since the 1st party received the amount as full
settlement, he is not interested in continuing the case
against the husband of the 2nd party, who is in jail from
Palayamkottai.
5. The 1st party is ready and willing to make any
endorsement regarding the receipt of the amount
before the Honourable High Court in Crl.MP(MD)No.
11060 of 2025 in Crl.RC(MD)SRNo.29228 of 2025.
6. The 1st party has no objection in closing the
case pending against the husband of the 2nd party, who
is the petitioner/appellant in Crl.MP(MD)No.11060 of
2025 in Crl.RC(MD)SR.No.29228 of 2025.
5. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that both
the parties, who have entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise
dated 11.09.2025, 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, as the revision petitioner is confined in jail and his wife has entered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise with the respondent on
11.09.2025, the Revision Petitioner may be released from jail without
imposing any condition.
7. Mr.Pratap Sudharsan, 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 01.08.2025 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
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 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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
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 acquittal. The order of conviction and
sentence recorded by all courts is set aside and he is
acquitted of the charge levelled against him."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
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. 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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
15. 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.
16. 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
Revision Petition may be disposed of in the same terms. A copy of the
judgment has been placed before the Court for perusal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
17. 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.
18. 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'.
19. 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: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 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: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act:-
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.
20. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
limited, nor curtailed by any other provision of the Sanhita or Act.
However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with
caution.
21. 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.
22. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
23. 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.
24. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
25. 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.27 of 2024 dated 16.12.2024 by the learned I-Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli District confirming the conviction and
sentence made in C.C.No.87 of 2023 dated 16.02.2024 on the file of the
Additional District Munsif, Valliyoor are hereby modified. The
conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act in C.C.No.87 of 2023 dated 16.02.2024 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.
26. In the result,
● The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in terms of Joint
Memorandum of Compromise dated 11.09.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
● The impugned conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.27 of
2024 dated 16.12.2024 by the learned I-Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli District confirming the conviction and
sentence made in C.C.No.87 of 2023 dated 16.02.2024 on the file
of the Additional District Munsif, Valliyoor, are hereby modified.
● 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.
● The Petitioner is directed to be released from jail forthwith without
imposing any condition.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes / No 24.09.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
Nsr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
Note: Issue Order Copy on 25.09.2025
To:
1. The Additional District Munsif Court, Valliyoor.
2. The I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Nsr
Order made in
24.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 02:27:25 pm )
