Allowed

K.Jaya Prabha v. G.Sundar

Madras HC26 Feb 2026CRL RC/1633/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners convicted and sentenced for cheque dishonour in an NI Act case sought revision after appellate dismissal. Parties reached settlement; filed compounding petition under Section 147 NI Act. Court compounded the case and allowed the criminal revision case.

What did the court decide?

Case compounded per Section 147 N.I.Act; respondent permitted to collect Rs.65,650/- deposited amount plus accrued interest from trial Court.

K.Jaya Prabha Vs G.Sundar — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL RC No. 1633 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL RC No. 1633 of 2022

¶7

K.Jaya Prabha W/o. Mr.G.K.kalairajan

¶8

G.K.Kalairajan S/o. G.Kumaran ..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

G.Sundar S/o. P.M.Ganapathy ..Respondent(s)

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for records pertaining to the Judgment and sentence dated 04.11.2022 in CA.No.204/2021 on the file of XXIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Confirming the Judgment and sentence dated 02.12.2021 in CC.No.11565/2015 of the XIX Metropolitan magistrate, Allikulam, Chennai 600003 and set aside the same.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Naresh Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.G.P.Kothandaraman

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioners are the accused in 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case,

¶15

filed by the respondent in C.C.No.11565 of 2014 before the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam Complex, Chennai. The trial Judge vide judgment dated

¶16

Page1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

CRL RC No. 1633 of 2022

¶19

02.12.2021 convicted the petitioners and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation along with 9% interest. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge in C.A.No.204 of 2021. The learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 04.11.2022, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court. During the trial, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked 11 documents. On the side of the defence, both the petitioners have examined themselves as DW1 and DW2 and marked Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.

¶20

2.The gist of the complaint is that the 1^st petitioner is the wife of the 2^nd petitioner. During the month of August, 2013, both the petitioners represented to the respondent that they own an extent of 533 sq. ft. land and flat No.C to an extent of 1110 sq. ft. in the ground floor at Vasantham Nagar, Chennai-99 and they agreed to sell the property to the respondent and received Rs.5 lakhs from the respondent on 29.08.2013. The 2^nd petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the same and an agreement for sale was entered on 04.11.2013. When the respondent insisted for completion of sale agreement and hand over the possession, the petitioners evaded and did not come forward to complete the sale agreement. Thereafter, on repeated request, the petitioners issued three cheques for Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- in total for Rs.2,00,000/-. All cheques were drawn on ING Vysya Bank, Villivakkam

¶21

Page2 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

CRL RC No. 1633 of 2022

¶24

Branch. When the cheques were presented by the respondent for collection, the State Bank of India, Kolathur Branch, Chennai, dishonoured them for the reason that “Present in proper zone-Non CTS”. Thereafter, the respondent sent a statutory notice to the petitioners on 30.08.2014, which was received by the petitioners and they sent a reply notice with false allegations on 17.09.2014. The respondent also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.4011 of 2016 and obtained a decree against the petitioners.

¶25

3.The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners have acted only as agents for the property. They represented that the owner of the property was willing for a sale and they collected the advance amount of Rs.2 lakhs and handed over the same to the owner of the property and later the owner of the property refused to sell the property. Since the petitioners have only lent their names and acted as agents for the owner, they were caught in between and falsely implicated. In the reply notice viz. Ex.P9 they have given all the details but the respondent had not taken any steps to proceed against the real owner. Since the petitioners have signed the cheques, they have been prosecuted. To disprove the same they got into the box and examined themselves as defence witnesses and probabilised the defence and also produced the agreement Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. This part has not been considered by both the Courts below.

¶26

__________ Page3 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

CRL RC No. 1633 of 2022

¶29

4.The learned counsel for the respondent / complainant submitted that the

¶30

petitioners viz. Husband and wife played a fraud on the respondent claiming that they are the owners of the property and also produced certain documents to show that they are the owners, believing their representation, the respondent paid the advance amount and they also entered into agreement for sale Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, projecting them as the owner and not as agents. Later, when the cheques were dishonoured, they took a stand that they are not the owners. He further submitted civil suit in O.S.No.4011 of 2016 is also filed in this regard.

¶31

5.Heard both sides. Perused materials on record.

¶32

6.The petitioners failed to enter appearance before the Civil Court and respondent obtained an exparte decree and thereafter, Execution Petition filed and it is pending. The respondent now wants to give quietus to the issue, from the year 2014, for more than 10 years he has been fighting to seek justice and to collect back the hard earned money which he was cheated.

¶33

7.Now, the petitioners and the respondent and their respective counsels

¶34

had negotiations. The complainant and the petitioners have agreed to resolve the issue for receipt of Rs.3.25 lakhs which includes Rs.65,650/-, deposited to the credit of C.C.No.1156 of 2014, pursuant to the order of the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.23015 of 2021. Today, they are present before this Court

¶35

Page4 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

CRL RC No. 1633 of 2022

¶38

and filed a compounding petition under Section 147 of N.I.Act. The same is ordered.

¶39

8.In view of the compromise entered between the parties, the case is compounded. The petitioners got no objection for the respondent to file a Memo / Petition before the trial Court along with this order copy and to collect the deposited amount of Rs.65,650/- on 15.02.2022 along with the accrued interest if any.

¶40

9.Further, the petitioners are also permitted to file appropriate petition before the Civil Court in O.S.No.4011 of 2016 , seeking for return of the Court fee as per their entitlement.

¶41

10.This Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, stands closed.

¶42

26-02-2026

¶43

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶44

kas

¶45

To.

¶46

1.The XXIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai 2.XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam, Chennai

¶47

Page5 of 6

¶48

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

¶49

CRL RC No. 1633 of 2022

¶50

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶51

kas

¶52

CRL RC No. 1633 of 2022

¶53

26-02-2026

¶54

__________ Page6 of 6

¶55

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

K.Jaya Prabha v. G.Sundar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Jaya Prabha v. G.Sundar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Venkatanarayana Vs State Represented by Inspector of Police

G.Venkatesh Vs Velumyle

K.Sivakumar Vs v.Shanmugasundram

A.Madesh Vs P. Arjunan

Mrs. Nirmala Devi Vs Mr. Anandakumar

P.Murali Vs M/S.Airmedia Technologis Ch