C.Rajendran vs M.K.Elancheziyan

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012545562026}
AND
CRL MP NO. 20973 OF 2026
C.Rajendran
S/o Chandrasekar,
No.8/5, Vallalar Street,
Thangam Colony, Anna Nagar,
Chennai
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
M.K.Elancheziyan
S/o Karunanidhi,
No.559, 10th Street,
Sivasakthi Nagar,
Kolathur, Chennai
..Respondent(s)
CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
Criminal Revision Petition filed under section 438 r/w.442 of BNSS, 2023
seeking to call for the records and set aside the Judgment dated 3-12-2024 in
Crl App No. 369 of 2024 on the file of XVIII Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai confirming the Judgment dated 30-11-2022 in CC No. 7062/2019 on
the file of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Egmore @
Allikulam, Chennai and pass such further or other orders as this Court.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. S.N.Subramani
For Respondent(s): Mr. B. Kamalesh
__________
Page1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
ORDER
Heard Mr.S.N. Subramani, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and
Mr.B. Kamalesh, learned counsel for the Respondent and Mr.M. Dinesh, learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State.
2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set
aside the judgment passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in
C.A.No.369 of 2024, dated 03.12.2024, confirming the order passed by
Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai in
C.C.No.7062 of 2019, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court,
Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai, dated 30.11.2022.
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, by the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Egmore @ Allikulam,
Chennai made in C.C.No.7062 of 2019 by the judgment dated
30.11.2022, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year and no fine under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
or compensation u/s.357(3) was imposed. Aggrieved by the order
of the Trial Court, the Petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal in
__________
Page2 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
C.A.No.369 of 2022 before the learned XVIII Addl. City Civil
Court, Chennai.
b) The learned First Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment
passed by the trial court by dismissing the said Appeal vide order
dated 03.12.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal
Revision Petition has been filed.
4. Pending, Criminal Revision, the parties to the Revision have amicably
settled the matter among themselves and have entered into a Compromise Memo
of Full and Final Settlement on 29.10.2026. The Respondent viz., Mr. M.K.
Elanchezian and the petitioner viz., C. Rajendran, have entered into a Joint
Compromise Memo of Full and Final Settlement, dated 29.10.2026 and the same
is taken on record and the terms of the Joint Memo filed by the petitioner and the
respondent, dated 29.10.2026 is extracted hereunder:
‘ JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT
“ The petitioner submits that the respondent has filed a complaint as against
the petitioner for an offence U/s.138 of NI Act. The learned FTC No.1,
Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai convicted the petitioner for the offence u/s.138 of
the NI Act for one year on 30.11.2022. The petitioner has filed Crl.Appeal
No.369 /2022 before the XVIII Addl. City Civil Court against the conviction.
By order dated 3.12.2024 the learned Judge was pleased to confirm the trial
court order. In the meanwhile the petitioner was arrested on14.10.2026 and
remanded in judicial custody. Even though the petitioner and the respondents
are friends, due to money problem the respondent had filed complaint and get
order. Now both parties agreed to settle the dispute amicably and the
respondent received a Demand Draft No.492818 dated 23.10.2026 for a sum of
Rs.90,000/- as full and final settlement.
The petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent are friends. The well-
wishers of the both advised them to settle the issue amicably. Considering that
the age of the petitioner and respondent both are agreed to settle the issue
__________
Page3 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
amicably. The respondent has no objection to allow the Crl.Revision petition
pending before this Hon’ble Court. The respondent also no objection to acquit
the petitioner from this case. The petitioner is also agreed for all the terms.
5. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that pending
Revision, both the parties have entered into a Compromise Memo of Full and
Final Settlement, dated 29.10.2026, duly singed by the parties and their respective
counsels who are present before this Court and to that effect, the Criminal
Revision case shall be disposed of in accordance with the terms and conditions as
contained therein.
6. Mr.B. Kamalesh, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the
settled amount of Rs.90,000/- has been paid by the Revision Petitioner by way of
demand draft No.492818, dated 23.10.2026 and no amount is due against the
Revision Petitioner. He further submits that the Respondent is not interested in
continuing the case against the Revision Petitioner .
7. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the
present Criminal Revision Case has been filed on 26.10.2026 before this Court
and on the basis of change in circumstances, as the parties have entered into
Compromise Memo dated 29.10.2026, 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
__________
Page4 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
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.
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 offenceunder section 138 N.I. Act wherein in para 21, it was
pleased to observed 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 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
__________
Page5 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
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.
(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.
(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.
__________
Page6 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
(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 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 143becomes
necessary, where sentence of one year may have to be
awarded and compensation under Section357(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 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 Crl. L. J.3786 wherein, the
Gujarat High Court was pleased to observe as under:-
__________
Page7 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
“
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
482Cr.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 :
“ 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
__________
Page8 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
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.
13. Per contra, Mr.M. Dinesh, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal
Side) appearing for the State, 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 (Criminal Side) appearing for the
State 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. 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 VsJeyakrishnan]. 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
__________
Page9 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
perusal.
16. I have heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, learned
counsel for the Respondent and learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for the State 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
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 firsttwo 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 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
__________
Page10 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
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 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 shall be compounded if the accused is, by
reason of a previous conviction, liable either to 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
__________
Page11 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
1974), every offence punishable under thisAct 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 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. 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
__________
Page12 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
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 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 VsJeyakrishnan] 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 Compromise Memo arrived at between the parties to this litigation out of
Court. The impugned judgment passed in C.A.No.369 of 2024 dated 03.12.2024 by
the learned XVIII Addl. City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the conviction and
__________
Page13 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
sentence made in C.C.No.7062 of 2019, dated 30.11.2022 on the file of
Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai and
sentence under S ection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.7062 of
2019 dated 03.03.2023 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
Compromise Memo of Full and Final Settlement, dated
29.10.2026.
● The impugned conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.369
of 2024, dated 03.12.2024 by the learned XVIII Addl. City Civil
Court, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence made
in C.C.No.7062 of 2019, dated 30.11.2022 on the file of the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Egmore @
Allikulam, Chennai 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.
__________
Page14 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
●
The revision petitioner – C. Rajendran, Son of
Chandrasekar is ordered to be released from jail forthwith
without imposing any conditions.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
30-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking
Neutral Citation: Yes
MSR
To:
1. The Metropolitan Magistrate,
Fast Track Court, Egmore @ Allikulam,
Chennai.
2. The XVIII addl. City Civil Court, Chennai
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Note: Issue copy today
__________
Page15 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )

CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
SHAMIM AHMED J.
MSR
CRL RC No. 2476 of 2026
AND
CRL MP NO. 20973 OF 2026
30-10-2026
__________
Page16 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:45:07 pm )