Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

S.Selvi Vs Muthumurugaprabu — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
S.Selvi Vs MuthumurugaprabuS.Selvi v. Muthumurugaprabu

Disposed

S.Selvi v. Muthumurugaprabu

Madras HC23 Sept 2025CRL RC(MD)/1225/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction for cheque dishonour confirmed in appeal. During proceedings the petitioner deposited the full cheque amount and parties filed a joint compromise memo. Following an earlier decision of this Court, the offence was compounded, the conviction annulled, and the petitioner treated as acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Compounding permitted; conviction and sentence annulled; petitioner treated as acquitted; respondent permitted to withdraw Rs.98,000 deposited before trial court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Compounding permitted; conviction and sentence annulled; petitioner treated as acquitted; respondent permitted to withdraw Rs.98,000 deposited before trial court.

Issue for consideration

Whether a conviction under Section 138 NI Act confirmed in appeal can be nullified by the High Court on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are compoundable at any stage, including after conviction is confirmed on appeal. Where parties settle amicably, the entire cheque amount is deposited, and a genuine joint compromise memo is filed, the High Court may permit compounding in exercise of its revisionary power under Section 442 read with Section 359(6) BNSS, Section 147 NI Act having overriding effect over Section 359 BNSS. Compounding has the effect of acquittal; conviction and sentence stand annulled.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

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

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

O R D E R

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).

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.

2/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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.

3/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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.

4/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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.”

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.

5/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

2. Put up this case on 23.09.2025 before appropriate bench. ”

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

6/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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

7/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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

8/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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.”

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.

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

9/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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.

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., 10/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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.

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.

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). 11/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

Irrespective of which stage, the parties are compromising with the kind leave of this Hon'ble Court.

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

12/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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.

13/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount."

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

14/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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

15/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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'.

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

16/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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."

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

17/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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."

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.

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

18/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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.

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.

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

19/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

Revision Petition may be disposed of in the same terms. A copy of the judgment has been placed before the Court for perusal.

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.

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'.

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.

20/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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 subsection (5) of section 3 or section 190 of the Bharatiya

21/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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.

22/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

(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:-

23/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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.

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.

24/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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.

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.

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 25/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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.

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.

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 26/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

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 .

27/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

●

● The Revision Petitioner shall be treated as acquitted on account of

compounding of the offence with the complainant/respondent.

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

28/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

To:

The Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam (FTC), Theni.

The Principal District and Session Judge, Theni,

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

29/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

SHAMIM AHMED , J.

Nsr

Order made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.1225 of 2025

23.09.2025

30/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether a conviction under Section 138 NI Act confirmed in appeal can be nullified by the High Court on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal HReferred¶12
2010 (2) SCC (Cri) 1328 · Who else cites this
M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another vs. Kanchan MehtaReferred¶13
2017 (7) Supreme 558
Kripal Singh Pratap Singh Ori vs. Salvinder Kaur Hardip SinghReferred¶14
2004 Crl. L. J. 3786
Vinay Devanna Nayak vs. Ryot Seva Sahkari Bank LimitedReferred¶15
AIR 2008 SC 716 · Who else cites this
K.Balachenniappan Vs JeyakrishnanFollowed¶27
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.875 of 2025 dated 19.09.2025

Statutes considered

4 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881138147
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023359442

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
S.Selvi
respondent
Muthumurugaprabu

Coram

AI extract

Shamim Ahmed

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 23 Sept 2025 · September
Registered: 1 Sept 2025
Case no.: CRL RC(MD)/1225/2025
CNR: HCMD011090062025
Topic: Cheque Dishonour
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
Disposal: DISPOSED OF

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Shamim Ahmed

R.Saravanan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu
22 Sept 2025
R.Thirumoorthy Vs The State of Tamil Nadu
22 Sept 2025
Akbarsulthan Vs Rukmani
22 Sept 2025
R. Ananda Prakash Vs a. Malarvizhi
23 Sept 2025
J.Bhuvaneswari Vs R.Velmurugan
23 Sept 2025
Alexander Vs The State of Tamil Nadu
23 Sept 2025

Cite this judgement

S.Selvi v. Muthumurugaprabu, CRL RC(MD)/1225/2025 (MAD), decided on 23 September 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited5

Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal HReferred¶12
M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another vs. Kanchan MehtaReferred¶13
Kripal Singh Pratap Singh Ori vs. Salvinder Kaur Hardip SinghReferred¶14

View all cases cited

Statutes4

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881138 · 147
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023359 · 442

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

Shamim Ahmed

Parties & counsel