Madras High Court
Neelanarayanan vs Parameshwaran on 21 November, 2025
2025:MHC:2644
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1465 of 2025
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.17937 of 2025
Neelanarayanan
S/o.Kanthasamy
Monikattipottal and Post
Kanyakumari District. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Parameshwaran
S/o.Pazhanivel
No.55A
Pillayarpuram
Monikattipottal and Post
Kanniyakumari District.
2.The State of Tamiladu
Rep by The Public Prosecutor
Nagercoil. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442
of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records of the impugned Judgment passed
in C.A.No.72 of 2019 dated 20.09.2025 on the file of the Sessions Fast
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025
Track Mahila Court, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil, by confirming the
Judgment passed in S.T.C.No.247 of 2018 dated 26.12.2018 on the file
of the learned Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Nagercoil and set
aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vamanan
For R2 : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad
Government Advocate
*****
ORDER
Heard Mr.K.Vamanan, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, learned Government Advocate appearing for the second Respondent.
2.This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.72 of 2019 dated 20.09.2025 on the file of the Sessions Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil, confirming the Judgment passed in S.T.C.No.247 of 2018 dated 26.12.2018 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Nagercoil.
2/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025
3.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 in S.T.C.No.247 of 2018 dated 26.12.2018 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Nagercoil, to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence alleged under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and to pay the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.
1,00,000/- to the Respondent, within two months, in default of payment, he has to undergo further period of one month simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the Petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.72 of 2019 before the Sessions Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil.
b) The learned Sessions Fast Track Mahila Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil, confirming the judgment passed in S.T.C.No.247 of 2018 dated 26.12.2018 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court (Magisterial 3/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 Level) Nagercoil, dismissed the said Appeal vide judgment dated 20.09.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.
4.Today, when the matter is being taken up, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the parties have entered into a Memorandum of Compromise and produced the joint compromise memo dated 21.11.2025, and the same is taken on record. As per the terms of the Compromise, the following conditions were laid down between the parties which are quoted as under:
“whereas, in the meantime the petitioner herein has settled the entire Cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only) due to the first respondent on 14.11.2025 as full and final settlement as against the cheque amount and the first respondent has no other claim as against the petitioner herein. Further the parties hereto were pacified and whereas both parties hereto have resolved the issues.
Whereas the first respondent resolved not to proceed with the criminal case and has no objection to 4/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 allow the above Criminal Revision and acquit the petitioner/accused herein from all the charges.
Whereas in the light of the above compromise, the parties hereto shall not interfere with their personal life of each other with any issue or claim with regard to in this criminal case also. The first respondent is not interested to proceed with the above criminal case against the petitioner.
Whereas, the first respondent undertakes that he is not interested to proceed further with the criminal case further at any point of time against the petitioner herein. Therefore the first respondent agreed to allow the Criminal revision case in CH.R.C. (MD) No. 1465/2025 and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner herein.
The parties here to have agreed to the above terms, adhere to the same in strict sense and put their signature on the day, month and year as written above.”
5.Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the entire amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the order of the Trial 5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 Court, was paid to the Respondent and he prays this Court that, as the Revision Petitioner is confined at Cenral Prison, Palayamkottai, since 07.11.2025 and he prays that as the parties have entered into compromise and in view of the Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated 21.11.2025, the Revision Petitioner may be released from jail without imposing any condition.
6.On perusal of the records, it is seen that an affidavit of the first respondent, dated 17.11.2025, has been filed before this Court, which is already on record and it that affidavit, the first respondent has also acknowledged the receipt of the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner. Relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
“6.I state that in the meantime on behalf of the petitioner his family members approached me and settled the entire Cheque amount due to me by the petitioner on 11.11.2025. I have received full and final settlement as against the cheque amount and I have no other claim as against the petitioner herein. Therefore, I have no objection 6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 to allow the above Criminal Revision and acquit the petitioner/accused herein from all the charges.
It is therefore pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept the affidavit and allow the criminal revision case and thus render justice.”
7.Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the present Revision has been filed on 20.11.2025 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). Irrespective of which stage, the parties are compromising with the kind leave of this Hon'ble Court.
7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025
8. 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 view of this submission, we direct that the following 8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 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.9/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 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."
9. 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.10/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025
(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 11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 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 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'.
10. 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 12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 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."
11. 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 :
13/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 “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."
12. 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 14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 parties may be permitted to compound the offence and the conviction of the petitioner be set aside.
13. Per contra, Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, the learned Government Advocate for the second respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and submits that the Revision 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.
14.The learned Government Advocate 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. 15/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025
15. 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 Revision Petition may be disposed of in the same terms. A copy of the judgment has been placed before the Court for perusal.
16. I have heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the second respondent and perused the 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 16/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 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, 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.
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 17/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 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 18/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 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 19/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 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:-
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.
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 20/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 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.
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. 21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025
21. 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.
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 22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 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. 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.72 of 2019 dated 20.09.2025 on the file of the Sessions Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil, confirming the Judgment passed in S.T.C.No.247 of 2018 dated 26.12.2018 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Nagercoil, are hereby modified. The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the 23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C No.247 of 2018, dated 26.12.2018 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.
25. In the result, ● The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in terms of Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated 21.11.2025.
● The judgment passed in C.A.No.72 of 2019 dated 20.09.2025 on the file of the Sessions Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil, confirming the Judgment passed in S.T.C.No.247 of 2018 dated 26.12.2018 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Nagercoil, are hereby modified. ● The conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner by both the courts below stands anulled.
● The Revision Petitioner shall be treated as acquitted on account of compounding of the offence with the complainant/respondent. 24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 ● The authority of Central Prison, Palayamkottai is directed to release the Revision Petitioner from jail forthwith without imposing any condition.
There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes / No 21.11.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
mm
To:
1.The Sessions Fast Track Mahila Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil.
2.The Judge, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level). Nagercoil
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
25/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 Note: Issue Order copy on 21.11.2025 26/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm ) Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 SHAMIM AHMED, J.
mm Order made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.1465 of 2025 21.11.2025 27/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:43 pm )