S.Rajathi Vs Rajkumar Jain — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2026)

S.Rajathi Vs Rajkumar Jain — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Convictions and sentences in S.T.C.Nos.1070 & 1067 of 2006 and S.T.C.No.1451 of 2006, as confirmed in C.A.Nos.40 & 38 of 2017 and C.A.No.133 of 2016 (judgments dated 30.07.2021), set aside; petitioners acquitted of all charges; Criminal Revision Petitions allowed.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the settlement between the parties and the fact that every offence punishable under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is compoundable under Section 147, the convictions and sentences imposed on the petitioners should be set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

Every offence punishable under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is compoundable, as per Section 147 of that Act.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner and the respondent confirmed the compromise arrived between them, and the Court enquired both parties in respect of the same.

Key takeaways

No useful purpose will be served by keeping the revisions pending; it will be in the interest of both parties not to keep these proceedings pending, since it will affect their future life.ratio¶80
In view of the settlement and full payment (three demand drafts of Rs.15,31,800/-, Rs.76,100/- and Rs.3,52,292/- plus Rs.6,029/- by G.Pay), the Court is inclined to set aside the conviction of the petitioner.ratio¶85
The convictions and sentences imposed in S.T.C.No.1070 of 2006 (dated 03.03.2017), S.T.C.No.1067 of 2006 (dated 03.03.2017) and S.T.C.No.1451 of 2006 (dated 14.11.2016), confirmed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in C.A.No.40 of 2017, C.A.No.38 of 2017 and C.A.No.133 of 2016 by judgment dated 30.07.2021, are set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (M. Nirmal Kumar, J., 26.02.2026) allowing Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022, criminal revision petitions under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC. The revisions challenged convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 of S.Rajathi (Proprietrix, M/s.Sukanya Garments) in S.T.C.Nos.1070 and 1067 of 2006 (Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, judgments dated 03.03.2017) and of S.Senniyappan and Satheesh (Partners, M/s.S.A.S. Textiles) in S.T.C.No.1451 of 2006 (judgment dated 14.11.2016), as confirmed by judgments dated 30.07.2021 in C.A.Nos.40 and 38 of 2017 (I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur) and C.A.No.133 of 2016 (II Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur). On the date of the hearing the parties confirmed that the dispute was resolved: the petitioner handed over demand drafts DD.No.18084 for Rs.15,31,800/-, DD.No.180883 for Rs.76,100/- and DD.No.180882 for Rs.3,52,292/- dated 20.02.2026 (IDFC First Bank, Tiruppur Branch) and paid the balance of Rs.6,029/- through G.Pay. Invoking Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (every offence punishable under the Act being compoundable), the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the revisions pending, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the petitioners of all charges.

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1106 & 1393 of 2022

Crl.R.C.No.107 of 2022

S.Rajathi W/o.Senniyappan, Proprietrix of M/s.Sukanya Garments, 33, Kumarasamy Layout, Muthu Nagar Extension, Tirupur – 641 607. ... Petitioner

Vs.

Rajkumar Jain, S/o.Lalchand, Proprietor M/s.Mahaveer Knittex, 2, Selvapuram 5 th Street, Mannarai Post, Tiruppur. ... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgmnent dated 30.07.2021 made in C.A.No.40 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in judgment dated 03.03.2017 made in STC.No.1070 of

1/17

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022

2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur by allowing this criminal revision petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Balaji For Respondent : Mr.R.Baskaran

Crl.R.C.No.108 of 2022

S.Rajathi W/o.Senniyappan, Proprietrix of M/s.Sukanya Garments, 33, Kumarasamy Layout, Muthu Nagar Extension, Tirupur – 641 607. ... Petitioner

Vs.

A.Paraschand Jain, S/o.Amarchand, Proprietor of M/s.Mahaveer Hosieries, 10, Sakthi Nagar, Mannarai Post, Tiruppur. Rep. by his power agent Rajkumar Jain, S/o.Lalchand, Selvapuram 5 th Street, Mannarai Post, Tiruppur. ... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgmnent dated 30.07.2021 made in C.A.No.38 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in judgment dated 03.03.2017 made in STC.No.1067 of

2/17

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022

2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur by allowing this criminal revision petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Balaji For Respondent : Mr.R.Baskaran

Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2022

1.M/s.S.A.S. Textiles, Rep. by its Partner, S.Senniyappan, 4/318-A, Pappa Nagar, Cotton Mill Road, Tiruppur.

2.S.Senniyappan, S/o.Subbrayagounder, Partner: M/s.S.A.S. Textiles 4/318-A, Pappa Nagar, Cotton Mill Road, Tiruppur.

3.Satheesh, S/o.Subramaniam, Partner: M/s.S.A.S. Textiles 4/318-A, Pappa Nagar, Cotton Mill Road, Tiruppur. ... Petitioner Vs. P.Nakumar S/o.Paraschand Jain, Proprietor of M/s.Mahaveera, 1, Kg Layout, Kongu Main Rod, Tirupur, Rep. by his power agent Rajkumar Jain, S/o.Lalchand, Selvapuram 5 th Street, Mannarai Post, Tiruppur. ... Respondent

3/17

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment dated 30.07.2021 made in C.A.No.133 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in judgment dated 14.11.2016 in STC.No.1451 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur by allowing this criminal revision petition.

COMMON ORDER

Crl.R.C.No.107 of 2022 filed to set aside the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 30.07.2021 made in C.A.No.40 of 2017 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the judgment dated 03.03.2017 made in S.T.C No.1070 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur.

2.Crl.R.C.No.108 of 2022 filed to set aside the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 30.07.2021 made in C.A.No.38 of 2017 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the judgment 4/17

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022 dated 03.03.2017 made in S.T.C No.1067 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur.

3.Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2022 filed to set aside the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 30.07.2021 made in C.A.No.40 of 2017 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the judgment dated 14.11.2016 made in S.T.C No.1451 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur.

4.The gist of the case in Crl.R.C.No.107 of 2022 is that the petitioner availed a hand loan of Rs.6,90,000/- for her urgent business requirements from the respondent by way of cheque and in discharge of her liability, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.842543 dated 13.10.2005 drawn on UCO Bank, Tiruppur Branch. When the respondent presented the said cheque for collection, the same was returned unpaid on 13.10.2005 due to “Insufficient Funds”. Therefore, the respondent sent a statutory notice to the petitioner on 18.10.2005 calling upon the petitioner to pay the cheque amount within 15 days after the receipt of the notice as contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After receiving the notice

5/17

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

on

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022 on 24.10.2005, the petitioner neither sent a reply nor paid the cheque

amount. Hence, the respondent filed a private complaint. During trial, PW1 to PW4 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P 1 6 marked on the side of the complainant and on the side of the accused, no witness examined and no documents marked. After completion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.6,90,000/- and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the

respondent/complainant within a period of three months. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No. 4 0 of 2017 before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and the learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 30.07.2021 dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Against which, the present revision petition is filed.

5.The gist of the case in Crl.R.C.No.108 of 2022 is that the petitioner purchased yarn from the respondent/complainant under various credit

6/17

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022 invoices and in the course of business, the petitioner is due and payable for a sum of Rs.1,59,250/- towards the purchases made since 16.02.2005. The petitioner issued three cheques bearing Nos.842532, 842538 and 842513 on various dates for a total sum of Rs.1,59,250/- drawn on UCO Bank, Tiruppur Branch. When the respondent presented the cheques for collection, the same was returned unpaid due to “Insufficient Funds”. Therefore, the respondent sent a statutory notice to the petitioner on 18.10.2005 calling upon the petitioner to pay the cheque amount within 15 days after the receipt of the notice as contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After receiving the notice on 24.10.2005, the petitioner neither sent a reply nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the respondent filed a private complaint. During trial, PW1 to PW5 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P37 marked on the side of the complainant and on the side of the accused, no witness examined and no documents marked. After completion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.1,59,250/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the

7/17

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022 respondent/complainant within a period of three months. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.38 of 2017 before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and the learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 30.07.2021 dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Against which, the present revision petition is filed.

6 .The gist of the case in Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2022 is that the petitioners

purchased yarn from the respondent/complainant under various credit invoices and in the course of business, the petitioners are due and payable for a sum of Rs.34,436/- towards the purchases made. The second petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.256556 on 26.12.20025 for a sum of Rs.34,436/drawn on Corporation Bank, SSI Branch, Tiruppur. When the respondent presented the cheque for collection, the same was returned unpaid due to “Exceeds Arrangement”. Again on 27.01.2006, the respondent presented the cheque but it was returned upaid due to “Payment stopped by drawer”. Therefore, the respondent sent a statutory notice to the petitioners on 28.01.2006 calling upon the petitioners to pay the cheque amount within 15 days after the receipt of the notice as contemplated under Section 138 of 8/17

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After receiving the notice, the petitioners neither sent a reply nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the respondent filed a private complaint. During trial, PW1 to PW3 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P24, Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 marked on the side of the complainant and on the side of the accused, Dw1 and DW2 examined and no documents marked. After completion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioners 2 and 3 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default, to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. Further, the petitioners 2 and 3 is directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.34,436/- and compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent/complainant within a period of three months. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.133 of 2016 before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and the learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 30.07.2021 dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Against which, the present revision petition is filed.

9/17

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022

7.Today [26.02.2026], the petitioner is present before this Court and the respondent appeared through video conferencing and confirmed that the issue between them was resolved. The petitioner produced three demand drafts, namely, DD.No.18084 for Rs.15,31,800/-, DD.No.180883 for Rs.76,100/- and DD.No.180882 for Rs.3,52,292/-, dated 20.02.2026 drawn on IDFC First Bank, Tiruppur Branch in favour of the respondent/complainant and the three Demand Drafts handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent. A scanned reproduction of the three demand drafts is as follows:

10/17

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022

��
��
��
��
��
� � ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��

11/17

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022

8.At this juncture, the respondent submitted that balance amount of

Rs.6,029/- has to be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner agreed for the same and paid the same to the respondent through G.Pay. A scanned reproduction of the screenshot for payment of Rs.6,029/- is as follows:

12/17

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022

��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��

13/17

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022

9.The petitioner and the respondent confirmed the compromise arrived between them. The respondent/complainant submitted that he has no objection to set aside the judgement of the Courts below against the petitioner/accused. This Court also enquired both the petitioner and the respondent in respect of the same.

10.In view of the above, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the revisions pending. It will be in the interest of both the parties not to keep these proceedings pending, since it will affect their future life. As per Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.

11. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner and the respondent resolved the issue in between

them. The petitioner produced three demand draft for a sum of Rs.15,31,800/-, Rs.76,100/- and RS.3,52,292/- respectively and the same was handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent. Further, the balance amount of Rs.6,029/- was also paid by the petitioner through G.Pay

14/17

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022 to the respondent. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to set aside the conviction of the petitioner.

12.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur in S.T.C.No.1070 of 2006 dated 03.03.2017, S.T.C.No.1067 of 2006 dated 03.03.2017 and S.T.C. No.1451 of 2006 dated 14.11.2016 confirmed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in C.A.No.40 of 2017, C.A.No.38 of 2017 and C.A.No.133 of 2016 by judgment dated 30.07.2021, are set aside. The petitioners are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.

13.In the result, the Criminal Revision Petitions are allowed.

26.02.2026

Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No cse

15/17

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022

To

1.The I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.

2.The II Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.

3.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur.

16/17

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

cse

Crl.R.C.Nos.107, 108 & 156 of 2022

26.02.2026

17/17

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Appellate judgments dated 30.07.2021 confirming the trial convictions: C.A.No.40 of 2017 and C.A.No.38 of 2017 (I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur) confirming S.T.C.Nos.1070 and 1067 of 2006 (judgments dated 03.03.2017), and C.A.No.133 of 2016 (II Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur) confirming S.T.C.No.1451 of 2006 (judgment dated 14.11.2016), all by Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur.¶86
I & II Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur · 30.07.2021
Prior proceeding
Trial conviction of petitioner S.Rajathi under Section 138 NI Act in S.T.C.No.1070 of 2006 (Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, judgment dated 03.03.2017): one year rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs.2,000/- (in default three months RI), plus payment of cheque amount Rs.6,90,000/- and compensation Rs.1,00,000/-.¶46
Prior proceeding
Appeal C.A.No.40 of 2017 dismissed by judgment dated 30.07.2021 of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the trial conviction and sentence.¶36
Prior proceeding
Trial conviction of petitioner S.Rajathi under Section 138 NI Act in S.T.C.No.1067 of 2006 (judgment dated 03.03.2017): one year rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs.2,000/- (in default three months RI), plus payment of cheque amount Rs.1,59,250/- and compensation Rs.50,000/-.¶51
Prior proceeding
Appeal C.A.No.38 of 2017 dismissed by judgment dated 30.07.2021 of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the trial conviction and sentence.¶37
Prior proceeding
Trial conviction of petitioners 2 and 3 (S.Senniyappan and Satheesh) under Section 138 NI Act in S.T.C.No.1451 of 2006 (judgment dated 14.11.2016): one year rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs.4,000/- (in default two months RI), plus payment of cheque amount Rs.34,436/- and compensation Rs.15,000/-.¶58
Prior proceeding
Appeal C.A.No.133 of 2016 dismissed by judgment dated 30.07.2021 of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the trial conviction and sentence.¶34