Sasikala Gothandaraman vs Sampath
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
Crl.MP.Nos.15760 and 15761 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011856662026}
Sasikala Gothandaraman, W/o.Gothandaraman,
No.91, Annai Theresa Veethi, Indira Nagar,
Valasaravakkam, Chennai - 600 087.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Sampath, S/o.Sakkarabani,
Santhapet, Thirukoilur, Kallakurichi District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgement of
conviction and sentence, dated 27.02.2026, passed in Crl.A.No.100 of 2024, by
the Principle District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi, confirming the
Judgment of conviction and Sentence, dated 20.11.2024, passed in CC.No.362
of 2021, by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirukoilur.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Shanmugasankar Bhanu
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Mohamed Uduman
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgement of conviction
and sentence, dated 27.02.2026, passed in Crl.A.No.100 of 2024, by the
Principle District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi, confirming the
Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 20.11.2024, passed in
CC.No.362 of 2021, by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirukoilur.
__________
Page1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
2. The facts of the case are as follows:-
(a) The Revision Petitioner is the Accused and the Respondent is the
complainant. In the year 2018, the Revision Petitioner/accused had
borrowed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Respondent/ complainant. In
order to discharge the said debt, the Revision Petitioner/ accused had
issued two cheques, dated 29.04.2021, for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and
Rs.3,00,000/-, respectively, in favour of the Respondent/ complainant.
When the said cheques were presented for encashment, the same were
dishonoured, on the ground of “funds insufficient”. Hence, the
Respondent/ complainant had filed a complaint in CC.No.362 of 2021,
for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
against the Revision Petitioner, before the Trial Court, for recovery of
the amount covered under the said cheques.
(b)Before the Trial Court, on the side of the Complainant, PW.1 was
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked. On the side of the Accused,
neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked. By the
impugned judgement of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court, dated
20.11.2024, the Revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for ten months and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as
compensation, to the Respondent, in default, to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for two months.
__________
Page2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
(c) In the appeal filed by the Revision Petitioner, by the impugned judgement
of conviction and sentence, dated 27.02.2026, the lower appellate court
had confirmed the judgement of conviction and sentence of the Trial
Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision
Petitioner/Accused, seeking the relief, as stated above.
3. This Court heard Mr.C.Shanmugasankar Bhanu, the learned counsel for
the Revision Petitioner and Mr.S.Mohamed Uduman, the learned counsel
for the Respondent.
4. During the pendency of the present Criminal Revision Case before this
Court, the parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement, dated
02.11.2026, which is taken on record and it reads as under:-
“SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON02-11-2026
BETWEEN Tmt. Sasikala Gothandaraman, W/o. Gothandaraman,
Aged about 68 years, No.91, Annai Theresa Veethi, Chennai - 600
087. IndiraNagar, Valasaravakkam,
AND
Thiru. Sampath, S/o. Sakkarabani, Aged about 62 years, Santhapet,
Thirukoilur, Kallakurichi District
Whereas
The Respondent filed a Petition in C.C.No.362 of 2021 on the file of
Learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukoilur under section 138 of NI
Act in respect of Cheque bearing No. 000124 dated 29-04-2021. On
20-11-2024 the Petitioner was convicted for simple imprisonment for
ten months and directed him to pay compensation amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakhs) to the Respondent. Subsequently the
petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.no. 100 of 2024 on the
__________
Page3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
file of learned District and sessions court, Kallakurichi and the
learned District and sessions judge has directed to deposit the 20%
of the compensation amount, Therefore the Petitioner has deposited
Rs. 80,000/- before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirukoilur.
Thereafter on 27-02-2026 the Principal District and sessions Judge,
Kallakurichi also has confirmed the order of learned judicial
magistrate, Thirukoilur.
Hence the present Criminal Revision Petition is filed before this
Hon’ble High court.
1. Dispute and Differences had arisen between the parties hereto
and Crl.R.C. No. 1784 of 2026 was filed by the Petitioner before this
Hon’ble court. And the same was came up for hearing on 25.08.2026
and this court has directed the Petitioner in Crl.M.P. NO.15760 &
15761 of 2026 to deposit 50% of the Cheque amount before the
Judicial magistrate Thirukoilur Court after deducting the already
deposited amount and hence the Petitioner has deposited Rs.20,000/-
before the Judicial magistrate Court, Thirukoilur. Hence totally the
Petitioner has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- before the Judicial magistrate
court.
2. The following settlement has been arrived between the parties
hereto:
a) The petitioner has agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-
(three lakhs only).
b) Accordingly the Petitioner has paid Rs 50,000/- to the respondent
by way of Gpay on 29-10-2026 and has paid another Rs.50,000/- to
the respondent by way of Gpay on 31-10-2026.
c) The Petitioner has paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent by way of
cash on 02-11-0026 (Today).
d) It is pertinent to mention that out of Rs.3,00,000/- settlement, the
petitioner has settled Rs.2,00,000/- and for the remaining
Rs.1,00,000/- the Petitioner is stating no objection to the Respondent
to withdraw the deposited amount before Judicial magistrate court,
Thirukoilur. Hence the Respondent also accepted the same.
e) The Respondent also accepted as full and final settlement and he
received the above said amount.
__________
Page4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
f) The Respondent has given no objection to allow the criminal
revision petition filed by the petitioner.
g) The Respondent has agreed that no further claim against the
petitioner and give consent to compound the offence under section
138 of NI act.
By signing the agreement the parties hereto state that all disputes
and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the
parties hereto.
DATE: 02-11-2026
PLACE: CHENNAI”
5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that during
the pendency of this Criminal Revision Case before this Court, the parties
have entered into a Settlement Agreement, dated 02.11.2026 to the effect
that the Criminal Revision Case shall be settled, in accordance with the
terms and conditions, as contained therein.
6. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further submitted that
in terms of the said Settlement Agreement, the Revision Petitioner has
agreed to pay sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Respondent and that the
Revision Petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the
Respndent, by way of Gpay on 29.10.2026 and another sum of Rs.50,000/-
to the Respondent, by way of Gpay, on 31.10.2026 and that today, the
Revision Petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Respondent,
who has also acknowledged the receipt the said amount and that the parties
have further agreed that the Respondent is entitled to withdraw a sum of
__________
Page5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
Rs.1,00,000/-, deposited by the Revision Petitioner before the Trial Court,
for which, the Revision Petitioner shall extend his full cooperation, by
signing all necessary documents and thus, no amount is due against the
Revision Petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the Revision
Petitioner has agreed to pay sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Respondent and
that the Revision Petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the
Respndent, by way of Gpay on 29.10.2026 and another sum of Rs.50,000/-
to the Respondent, by way of Gpay, on 31.10.2026 and that today, the
Respondent has received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Revision
Petitioner and that the Revision Petitioner has agreed to extend his full
cooperation for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by
the Revision Petitioner before this Trial Court and thus, no amount is due
against the Revision Petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further submitted that
on the basis of change in circumstances, the parties have entered into a
Settlement Agreement and hence, the learned counsel prayed this Court to
compound the offence and to acquit the Revision Petitioner.
9. 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
__________
Page6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
138 of Negotiable Instruments 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 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.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the
Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque
amount."
__________
Page7 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
10. The 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.
(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
__________
Page8 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
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 dishonour 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'.
11. The 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 at 2004 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."
12. The 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 at AIR 2008 SC 716
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as under :-
__________
Page9 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
"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."
13. The 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 learned 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.
14. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further argued that the
law regarding compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments
Act is very clear and is no more res-integra and that the offences under the
Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded, even at any stage of the
proceedings. The learned counsel 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 Revision Petitioner be
set aside.
__________
Page10 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
15. The learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that in view of the
said Settlement Agreement, entered into between the parties and the matter
has been settled amicably between the parties, the Respondent has no
objection for compounding the offence and the parties may be permitted
to compound the offence and the conviction of the Revision Petitioner may
be set aside.
16. This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent and also perused
the entire 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, it is pertinent to
examine the relevant provisions of the BNSS as well as the Negotiable
Instrument Act, namely, Section 359 of BNSS and Section 147 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, which read as under:-
Section 359 of BNSS:- 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 men-
tioned in the third column of that Table:-
__________
Page11 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
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 be-
fore which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be com-
pounded 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 compoun-
ded 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.
__________
Page12 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
(9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this
section.
Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act :’
"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 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 Code 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 Code 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
__________
Page13 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
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 and the other decisions of the Honourable Supreme
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 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. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the Settlement
__________
Page14 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
Agreement, this Court is of the view that the dispute between the parties
has been amicably resolved. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
provides that offences punishable under the said Act shall be
compoundable. Since the Respondent/Complainant has voluntarily agreed
for settlement and has received the entire amount agreed between the
parties, there is no impediment for this Court to permit compounding of the
offence in the interest of justice.
25. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, in terms of the
Settlement Agreement, arrived at between the parties to this litigation out
of Court.
26. The impugned conviction and sentence made in the judgement of
conviction and sentence, dated 27.02.2026, passed in Crl.A.No.100 of
2024, by the Principle District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi,
confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 20.11.2024,
passed in CC.No.362 of 2021, by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirukoilur.,
are hereby modified .
27. The conviction and sentence made under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act in CC.No.362 of 2021 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.
28. The Respondent is permitted to file appropriate application before the Trial
__________
Page15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
Court for withdrawal of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, deposited
by the Revision Petitioner before the Trial Court, within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if any such
application is filed by the Respondent, the Trial Court is directed to release
the aforesaid amount in favour of the Respondent, within a period of three
weeks thereafter.
29. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court
concerned for its compliance and information, immediately.
02-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SRCM
To
1. Principle District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi2.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirukoilur.
__________
Page16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
SRCM
CRL RC No. 1784 of 2026
02-11-2026
__________
Page17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:36:25 pm )