Allowed

M.Thangavel v. M.Balasubramani

Madras HC18 Feb 2026CRL RC/223/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a cheque dishonour case, convicted and whose appeal was dismissed, showed the complainant had been paid the Rs.85,000/- cheque amount by demand draft and had consented to compounding. The High Court verified payment through bank records, compounded the offence, acquitted the accused, and ordered refund of the 25% deposit.

What did the court decide?

Offence compounded; petitioner acquitted; 25% deposit (Rs.21,250/-) with interest to be repaid on memo; bail bonds cancelled; original records to be transmitted.

M.Thangavel Vs M.Balasubramani — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL RC No. 223 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2013

M.Thangavel

..Petitioner(s)

Vs.

M.Balasubramani S/o.Muthusamy

¶11

The Public Prosecutor District Court Complex Tirupur.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the Judgment dated 06.02.2013 passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirupur, in Crl.Appeal No.28 of 2012 filed against the Judgment dated 22.10.2012 passed in STC No.5708/2010 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Nellaiappan For Respondent(s): Mr.Manibharathi-B (MS.2096/2023) for Mr.Chinnaraj – R1

¶15

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Assisted by Ms.Harshana.T - R2

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Revision is filed by the petitioner, who is an accused in 138 of

¶18

Page1 of 9

¶19

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

¶20

CRL RC No. 223 of 2013

¶21

Negotiable Instruments Act case filed by the respondent as complainant in S.T.C.No.5078 of 2010. The trial Court vide judgment dated 22.10.2012 convicted the petitioner, sentenced him to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and directed the petitioner to pay the cheque amount of Rs.85,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur, in C.A.No.28 of 2012. The learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 06.02.2013 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial Court, against which the present Revision.

¶22

2.The gist of the complaint is that the petitioner and the 1^st respondent are known to each other for more than a year prior to the loan. On 03.03.2010, the petitioner for his urgent business and family needs approached the 1^st respondent for a hand loan of Rs.85,000/- and undertook to repay the same within a period of one month. Thereafter, the loan was not paid and on persisting demand, the petitioner had given a cheque drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, bearing No.391950 dated 03.04.2010 for Rs.85,000/-. When the subject cheque was presented for encashment on 09.09.2010, the same was returned for the reasons “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, statutory notice was issued on 14.09.2010. Though, the petitioner received the notice on 16.09.2010, he neither paid the cheque amount nor replied to the statutory notice. Thereafter, following the procedure, complaint filed by the 1^st respondent and

¶23

Page2 of 9

¶24

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

¶25

CRL RC No. 223 of 2013

¶26

complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked four documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and the petitioner marked one document Ex.D1.

¶27

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, submitted that the cheque amount of Rs.85,000/- paid to the 1^st respondent by way of demand draft dated 20.09.2018 and the reproduction of the demand draft has been recorded in the earlier order of this Court dated 18.12.2025. Further, he produced the affidavit of the 1^st respondent confirming the receipt of cheque amount and he has no objection in compounding the offence.

¶28

4.Though the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent appeared before this Court, he was unable to confirm the payment. Hence, this Court vide order dated 13.02.2026 directed the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur, to find out the whereabouts of the 1^st respondent and to inform him about the pendency of the case.

¶29

5.Mr.Karthikeyan, the Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Tiruppur City, caused an enquiry and unable to find the 1^st respondent in the address given and he further enquired one Zakir Hussain, Kumar and Mohanasamy who are the local residents and the Village Administrative Officer, and submitted a report that whereabouts of M.Balasubramani, S/o.Muthusamy is not known and he is not residing in the said address for a long period.

¶30

__________ Page3 of 9

¶31

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

¶32

CRL RC No. 223 of 2013

¶33

6.Thereafter, the petitioner addressed a letter to the IDBI Bank, Tiruppur Branch to confirm whether the demand draft No.032397, favouring M.Balasubramani issued on 20.09.2018 for Rs.85,000/- has been encashed by the said M.Balasubramani or not. The IDBI Bank, Tiruppur Branch confirmed that the demand draft No.032097 has been encashed and M.Balasubramani was paid on 26.09.2018. The letter and the transaction details given by the IDBI Bank are scanned below:

¶34

__________ Page4 of 9

¶35

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

¶36

CRL RC No. 223 of 2013

¶37

__________ Page5 of 9

¶38

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

¶39

CRL RC No. 223 of 2013

¶40

7.The Inspector of Police had also collected similar details from the IDBI

¶41

Bank, Tiruppur Branch and produced them before this Court today.

¶42

Page6 of 9

¶43

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

¶44

CRL RC No. 223 of 2013

¶45

8.In view of the fact that the cheque amount of Rs.85,000/- has been paid

¶46

by the petitioner and the 1^st respondent given an undertaking to compound the offence, and despite several steps taken to confirm the receipt of the cheque amount by the 1^st respondent, he could not be found. Hence, after getting the proof from the bank concerned, it is confirmed that the amount has been paid.

¶47

9.In light of above, this Court by invoking its inherent powers, compounds the case. The petitioner is acquitted from all charges from the above case.

¶48

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of preferring the appeal, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the cheque amount viz. Rs.21,250/- before the trial Court in S.T.C.No.5708 of 2010

¶49

11.The 25% amount paid by the petitioner is directed to be repaid to the petitioner along with accrued interest, if any, on filing a Memo along with this order copy dispensing notice to the respondent.

¶50

Page7 of 9

¶51

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

¶52

CRL RC No. 223 of 2013

¶53

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶54

kas

¶55

12.This Court appreciates the efforts taken by Mr.Karthikeyan, the

¶56

Inspector of Police North Police Station, Tiruppur City, to find out the whereabouts of the 1^st respondent.

¶57

13.This Criminal Revision Case stands allowed accordingly. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the petitioner shall stand cancelled. The Registry is directed to transmit the original records if any, to the respective Courts forthwith.

¶58

18-02-2026 (1/2)

¶59

kas

¶60

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

¶61

To.

¶62

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I Tiruppur

¶63

2.The Principal Sessions Judge Tiruppur

¶64

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104

¶65

Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2013 (1/2)

¶66

__________ Page8 of 9

¶67

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

¶68

CRL RC No. 223 of 2013

¶69

__________ Page9 of 9

¶70

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

M.Thangavel v. M.Balasubramani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Thangavel v. M.Balasubramani

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

C.Ramesh Vs The Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer

J.Udhayakumar Vs a.Abishanth

S.P.Thirumalai Vs Selvi

M.Thangavel Vs R.Balasubramani

Dhanalakshmi Vs State represented by its

Mr.J.R.Julius @ Jesuadimai Richard Julius Vs The State Rep. by the Superintendent of Police