(Prayer: To call for the records relating to the order, dated 23.04.2024, passed in C.A.No.115/2023 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee, confirming the order, 09.03.2023, passed in the STC.No.1185 of 2020, by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Poonamallee and set aside the same)
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 23.04.2024, passed in C.A.No.115/2023 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee, confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence, 09.03.2023, passed in the STC.No.1185 of 2020, by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Poonamallee and set aside the same.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:-
(a) The Revision Petitioner/Accused was running monthly chit groups. The Respondent/ complainant had joined the chit group of Rs.2,00,000/- and he had paid monthly subscriptions upto September 2020, but the Revision Petitioner had failed to pay the chit amount. Hence, the Respondent had filed a complaint in STC.No.1195 of 2020, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the Revision Petitioner, before the Trial Court, in respect of dishonour of a cheque, dated 21.09.2020, for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, issued by the Respondent.
(b)Before the Trial Court, on the side of the Complainant, PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked and on the side of the Accused, DW.1 was examined and Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were marked. By the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court, dated 09.03.2023, the Revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation, to the Respondent, within thirty days, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.
(c) In the appeal filed by the Revision Petitioner, by the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 23.04.2024, the lower appellate court had confirmed the judgement of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/Accused, seeking the relief, as stated above.
3. This Court Heard Mr.K.A.Mariappan, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.Kumar Rajan, the learned counsel for the Respondent.
4. During the pendency of the present Criminal Revision Case before this Court, the parties have entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise, dated 30.07.2026, which is taken on record and it reads as under:-
“The counsel for the above named petitioner and the respondent respectfully submits as follows:
1. The above Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the judgment dated 09.03.2023 passed in S.T.C. No.1185 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Poonamallee, which was confirmed by the judgment dated 23.04.2024 in C.A. No.115 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee.
2. During the pendency of the above Criminal Revision Petition, the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences out of their own free will, without any force, or coercion and have agreed to compound the offence in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. In terms of the settlement, the Revision Petitioner has this day paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) by way of cash to the respondent, who hereby acknowledges the receipt of the said amount to his full satisfaction.
4. The parties further agree that a sum of Rs.1,14,212/- (Rupees One Lakh Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Twelve only) lying to the credit of S.T.C. No.1185 of 2020 in the form of a Fixed Deposit pursuant to the orders passed by the 1st appellate Court at the time of admission of the first appeal in CA No.115/2023. The respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount by filing appropriate petitions before the Trial Court and the revision petitioner undertakes to extend his full cooperation by signing all necessary affidavits, applications or other documents that may be required for facilitating the release of the said amount in favour of the respondent.
5. The revision petitioner has today handed over to the respondent a photocopy of the Fixed Deposit Receipt relating to the aforesaid amount.
6. Upon receipt of the aforesaid amounts, the Respondent acknowledges that he has received the entire settlement amount in full and final satisfaction of his claim and has no further claim whatsoever against the revision petitioner arising out of the cheque transaction which is the subject matter of the above proceedings.
7. The petitioner and the respondent therefore jointly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record this Joint Memo of Compromise, permit the parties to compound the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and set aside the judgments passed in S.T.C. No.1185 of 2020 dated 09.03.2023, confirmed in C.A. No.115 of 2023 dated 23.04.2024, acquit the Revision Petitioner of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and consequently allow the above Criminal Revision Case and thus render justice. Dated at Chennai on this the 30th day of July, 2026.”
5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of this Criminal Revision Case before this Court, the parties have entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise, dated 30.07.2026 to the effect that the Criminal Revision Case shall be settled, in accordance with the terms and conditions, as contained therein.
6. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further submitted that in terms of the said Joint Memorandum of Compromise, today, the Revision Petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Respondent, who has also acknowledged the receipt the said amount and that the parties have further agreed that the Respondent is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,14, 212/-, deposited by the Revision Petitioner before the Trial Court, for which, the Revision Petitioner shall extend his full cooperation, by signing all necessary documents and thus, no amount is due against the Revision Petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that today, the Respondent has received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Revision Petitioner and that the Revision Petitioner has agreed to extend his full cooperation for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.1,14,212/- deposited by the Revision Petitioner before this Trial Court and thus, no amount is due against the Revision Petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further submitted that on the basis of change in circumstances, the parties have entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise and hence, the learned counsel prayed this Court to compound the offence and to acquit the Revision Petitioner.
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 of Negotiable Instruments 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 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."
10. The 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 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 giving affidavit and examining him and the bank's slip being prima facie evidence of the dishonour 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'.
11. The 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 at 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."
12. The 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 at 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."
13. The 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 learned 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.
14. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further argued that the law regarding compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act is very clear and is no more res-integra and that the offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded, even at any stage of the proceedings. The learned counsel 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 Revision Petitioner be set aside.
15. The learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that in view of the said Joint Memo of Compromise, entered into between the parties and the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, the Respondent has no objection for compounding the offence and the parties may be permitted to compound the offence and the conviction of the Revision Petitioner may be set aside.
16. This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent and also perused the entire materials placed on record.
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, it is pertinent to examine the relevant provisions of the BNSS as well as the Negotiable Instrument Act, namely, Section 359 of BNSS and Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which read as under:-
Section 359 of BNSS:- 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 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.
(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 :’
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act 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 Code 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 Code 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.
21. I have considered the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the other decisions of the Honourable Supreme 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 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.
24. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the Joint Memo of Compromise, this Court is of the view that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that offences punishable under the said Act shall be compoundable. Since the Respondent/Complainant has voluntarily agreed for settlement and has received the entire amount agreed between the parties, there is no impediment for this Court to permit compounding of the offence in the interest of justice.
25. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, in terms of Memorandum of Compromise, arrived at between the parties to this litigation out of Court.
26. The impugned conviction and sentence made in the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 23.04.2024, passed in C.A.No.115 of 2023 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee, confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence, 09.03.2023, passed in the STC.No.1185 of 2020, by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Poonamallee, are hereby modified.
27. The conviction and sentence made under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in STC.No.1185 of 2020 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.
28. The Respondent is permitted to file appropriate application before the Trial Court for withdrawal of the aforesaid amount, deposited by the Revision Petitioner before the Trial Court, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if any such application is filed by the Respondent, the Trial Court is directed to release the aforesaid amount in favour of the Respondent, within a period of three weeks thereafter.
29. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court concerned for its compliance and information, immediately.
