<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (2) TMI 136 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765590</link>
    <description>Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was treated as a special, overriding provision that permits compounding of a cheque dishonour offence at any stage, including revision, notwithstanding Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Where the parties settled during the revision and the complainant received the cheque amount, the Court accepted the compromise as a subsequent material circumstance and held that interference was justified to secure substantial justice and bring quietus to the dispute. The conviction and sentence under Section 138 were set aside, the accused was acquitted on compounding, and the amount deposited before the trial court was ordered to be refunded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2025 08:38:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=795439" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 136 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765590</link>
      <description>Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was treated as a special, overriding provision that permits compounding of a cheque dishonour offence at any stage, including revision, notwithstanding Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Where the parties settled during the revision and the complainant received the cheque amount, the Court accepted the compromise as a subsequent material circumstance and held that interference was justified to secure substantial justice and bring quietus to the dispute. The conviction and sentence under Section 138 were set aside, the accused was acquitted on compounding, and the amount deposited before the trial court was ordered to be refunded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>