AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the learned learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivakasi in STC.No.147 of 2021, by the judgment dated 09.05.2023, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the cheque amount, to the Respondent, in default of payment of the said compensation amount, to undergo further period of simple imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the Petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.115 of 2023 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. b) The learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, confirming the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivakasi in STC.No.147 of 2021, dated 09.05.2023, dismissed the said Appeal vide order dated 22.10.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed. 4. This Court vide order dated 08.10.2025 passed the following order: "This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Compromise, the following conditions were laid down between the parties which are quoted as under: "1.The respondent/complainant filed S.T.C.No. 147 of 2021 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivakasi, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging dishonour of a cheque issued by the petitioner/accused. 2. The said case was disposed of by judgment dated 09.05.2023, convicting the petitioner/accused. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred C.A.No.115 of 2023 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, which was dismissed on 22.10.2024, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence. 3.Thereafter, the petitioner/accused has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case before this Hon'ble Court, which is pending consideration. 4. After conviction, both the parties have, on their own volition, arrived at an amicable and full settlement of their dispute in order to maintain peace and cordiality between them. 5.Pursuant to the said settlement, the petitioner/accused has paid a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in cash, returned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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 guidelines be followed:- THE GUIDELINES (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: (a) That directions can be given that the Writ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh 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 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 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o acquittal. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by all courts is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him." 13. 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 parties may be permitted to compound the offence and the conviction of the petitioner be set aside. 14. Per contra, Mr.M.Karunanithi, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) who appeared for the State assisted this Court in the matter, 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. 15. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that the appeal has been rejected on merit and the Revision Petitioner was convicted, then where the part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccused is liable under subsection (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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herent 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 sustainability once the contesting parties entered into subsequent compromise. 24. 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. 25. 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 by the ....