M.VENKATESAN vs C.SELVAJOTHILINGAM

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
CNR:{HCMA010401282022}
AND
CRL MP NO. 21225 OF 2026
M.Venkatesan
S/o.Munusamy, No.5, Venkatachalam Street,
Palavalanthangal, Chennai-600 114.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
C.Selvajothilingam
S/o.Chittibabu, 7/4, Kabilar Street,
Palavalanthangal, Chennai-600 114.
..Respondent(s)
Crl.RC.No.431 of 2022:
Criminal Revision Case filed under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.,
seeking to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by
the Fast Track Court, Magistrate Level Alandur made in C.C.No.26 of 2011,
dated 08.10.2012 which was confirmed by the learned Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpet in C.A.No.59 of 2012, dated
22.02.2022.
CRL MP No. 21225 of 2026
To permit the petiitoner to compound the offence and set aside the
judgment dated 08.10.2012 in C.C.No.26/2011 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, FTC Magisterial Leval, Alandur confirmed by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu made in
C.A.No.59/2012 dated 22.02.2022 and thereby set aside the conviction and
sentence in Crl.R.C.No.431 of 2022 and as such further or other orders as this
Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus
render justice.
__________
Page1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.R. Ravi
For Respondent(s): Mr. .M.P.John Peter
ORDER
Heard Mr.T.R. Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and
Mr.M.P.John Peter, learned counsel for the Respondent and Mr.M.Dinesh, learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side).
2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside
the judgment passed by the I Addl. District Sessions Court, Kancheepuram District
at Chenglepet in C.A.No.59 of 2012, dated 22.02.2022 confirming the order passed
by the Fast Track Court, Magistrate Level, Alandur in C.C.No.26 of 2011, dated
08.10.2012
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 Fast Track
Court, Magistrate Level, Alandur made in C.C.No.26 of 2011, by the
judgment dated 08.10.2012, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, and also
directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment
of the said amount, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
__________
Page2 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the Petitioner filed a
Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.59 of 2012 before the learned Addl.
District Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chenglepet.
b) The learned First Appellate Court has confirming the judgment
passed by the trial court by dismissing the said Appeal vide order
dated 08.11.2023. 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 Joint Compromise
Memo of Full and Final Settlement on 08.10.2026. The Respondent viz.,
C.Selvajothilingam and the petitioner M.Venkatesan have entered into a Joint
Compromise Memo of Full and Final Settlement, dated 08.10.2026 and the same is
taken on record and the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, dated 08.10.2026 is
extracted hereunder:
‘JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO ’
This Joint Compromise Memo is executed at Chennai on this 8th day
of October 2026 between
M.VENKATESAN , S/o. Munusamy, aged 58 years, residing at No.5,
Venkatachalam Street, Palavanthangal, Chennai-600 114, hereinafter
called the party of the FIRST PART
C.SELVAJOTHILINGAM , S/o.Chittibabu, aged 56 years, residing at 7/4,
Kabilar Street, Palavanthangal, Chennai-600 114, hereinafter called the
party of the SECOND PART
__________
Page3 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
1. The Party of First Part submits that he was convicted by the learned
Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level Alandur under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentencing him to undergo
6 months SI and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 1 month SI
and also directed to pay compensation Us/Sec.357 Cr.P.C. Rs.50,000/- in
default to undergo 1 month SI in C.C.No.26/2011 by Judgment dated
08.10.2012.
2. The Party of First Part submits that against his conviction and sentence
he filed appeal before the learned Additional District Sessions Judge,
Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu in Criminal Appeal No.59/2012 and
the same was confirmed by Judgment dated 22.02.2022.
3. The Party of First Part submits that against the judgment of the appellate
court he filed the present Criminal Revision before this Hon'ble Court in
Crl.R.C.No.431/2022 and the same was admitted and notice was ordered to
the Party of Second Part herein.
4. The Party of First Part submits that while the revision is pending as per
the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 05.04.2022 the Party of First Part
deposited a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level, Alandur, on 02.05.2022. Further as per
the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 22.09.2026 he had deposited a sum of
Rs.2,75,000/- before the learned Judicial Magistrate FTC Alandur on
28.09.2026. Therefore totally he paid the entire cheque amount a sum of
Rs.5,50,000/- before the Trial Court.
5. The Party of First Part submits that while the Revision Petition is pending
before this Hon'ble Court both the Party of First Part and the Party of
Second Part by mutual discussion and negotiation agreed to resolve the
disputes amicably and settle the issue by way of entering into Memo of
Compromise dated 08.10.2026.
6. The Party of the First Part submits that he has agreed to settle the dispute
for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only), being
the cheque amount, towards full and final settlement of the claim.
Accordingly, the Party of the Second Part agrees to accept the aforesaid sum
of Rs.5,50,000/- in full and final satisfaction of the claim. In view of the
settlement arrived at between the parties, both parties agree that no further
__________
Page4 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
proceedings shall be pursued in Crl.R.C. No. 431 of 2022 pending before
this Hon'ble Court.
7. The Party of First Part submits that he is having no objection to withdraw
the above said sum of Rs.5,50,000/- by the Party of Second Part which was
already deposited by the Party of First Part before the Trial Court i.e.
Learned Judicial Magistrate, FTC, Magisterial Level, Alandur.
8. The Party of First Part submits that in view of the full and final settlement
arrived between the both parties, they have agreed to compound the offence
under Sec. 147 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
9. The Party of First Part submits that based on the Memorandum of
Compromise entered into between both the parties and also in view of the
full and final settlement, he is respectfully praying this Hon'ble Court to
accept the same and acquitting him from the charges framed against him in
the above said case.
10. Whereas the Parties of the First Part and Second Part have entered this
Compromise Memo without any coercion, compulsion or undue influence
from any other side.
5. Mr.T.R.Ravi, counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that pending
Revision, the matter was settled between the parties, based on the settlement arrived
among themselves and both the parties have entered into a Memorandum of
Compromise of Full and Final Settlement, dated 08.10.2026 , 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. He further submitted that pending Revision, as
per the order of this Court dated 05.04.2022, the Revision Petitioner has deposited
a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Magisterial
Level, Alandur on 02.05.2022 in CC.No.26 of 2011 and further on 22.09.2026, he
__________
Page5 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
deposited a further amount of Rs.2,75,000/- before the trial court on 28.09.2026 and
the Revision Petitioner has no objection to withdraw the amount of Rs.5,50,000/-
(Rs.2,75,000/- + Rs.2,75,000/-) which was lying to the credit of CC.No.26 of 2011
before the trial court.
6. Mr.M.P.John Peter, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the
entire amount has been deposited by the Revision Petitioner 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 . He further
submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the amount lying to the credit of
C.C.No.26 of 2011 before the trial court.
7. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the present
Revision has been filed on 17.03.2022 before this Court and on the basis of change
in circumstances, as the parties have entered into Joint Compromise Memo, 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.
__________
Page6 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
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 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.
__________
Page7 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
(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.
(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 ChapterXVII of the Act
has normally to be summary. The discretion of the Magistrate
under second proviso to Section 143, to hold that it was
__________
Page8 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
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
ofimprisonment, the Court has jurisdiction under Section357(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 thisapproach, prison sentence
of more than one year maynot 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:-
“
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 thel earned 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
__________
Page9 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
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 VinayDevanna Nayak vs. Ryot
Seva Sahkari Bank Limited reported in AIR2008 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 bythe 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 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
__________
Page10 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
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 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.
__________
Page11 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
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
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
BharatiyaNyaya 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
__________
Page12 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
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
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
__________
Page13 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
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
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
__________
Page14 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
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 Joint Compromise Memo dated 08.10.2026 arrived at between the parties to this
litigation out of Court. The impugned judgment passed in C.A.No.59 of 2012 dated
22.02.2022 by the learned Fast Track Court, Magistrate level, Alandur confirming
the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.26 of 2011 dated 08.10.2012 on the file
of Fast track Court, Magistrate Level, Alandur and sentence under S ection 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.26 of 2011 dated 08.10.2012 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.
__________
Page15 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
25 In the result,
.
● The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in terms of Joint
Compromise Memo of Full and Final Settlement, dated
08.10.2026.
● The impugned conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.59
of 2012, dated 22.02.2022 by the learned Addl. District
Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpet,
confirming the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.26 of
2011, dated 08.10.2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court,
Magistrate Level, Alandur, 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.
● The Respondent is permitted to move an application before
the learned Fast Track Court, Magistrate Level, Alandur for
withdrawal of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rs.2,75,000/- + Rs.2,75,000/-)
lying to the credit of C.C.No.26 of 2011 deposited by the
Revision Petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
● If any such application is moved by the respondent, the
learned Fast Track Court, Magistrate Level, Alandur is directed
__________
Page16 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
to release the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- in favour of the
respondent namely C.Selvajothilingam within a period of three
weeks thereafter.
● Consequently,Crl.M.P.No.21225 of 2026 seeking compound
the offence is accordingly allowed.
03.11.2026
Index :Yes / No
Internet :Yes / No
msr
To:
1. The Addl. District Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District
Chengalpattu
2. The Fast Track Court, Magistrate Level, Alandur.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
__________
Page17 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )

CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
SHAMIM AHMED J.
MSR
CRL RC No. 431 of 2022
AND
CRL MP NO. 21225 OF 2026
03-11-2026
__________
Page18 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:47 pm )