The High Court can annul convictions under the Negotiable Instruments Act based on joint compromises, emphasizing compensatory justice over punitive measures in cheque dishonour cases.

ORDER :

Heard Mr.S. Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.K.Dhananjayan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also this Court has taken the assistance of Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Govt. Advocate (crl.side).

2. The instant Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.7 of 2020 dated 21.12.2021 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram at Kallakurichi, confirming the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.42 of 2019, dated 30.01.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi.

3. The learned trial Judge has convicted the Revision Petitioner/accused under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo SI for a period of one year and also directed him to pay a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- within two months from the date of judgment, in default, to undergo SI for three months. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court was also confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

4. The facts of the case in brief are as follows;

(i) The Revision Petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as a hand loan from the respondent/ complainant on 17.12.2025 and issued a post-dated cheque on 10.12.2018 in favour of the respondent drawn on Axis Bank, Attur Branch, bearing Cheque No.050755 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-.
(ii) When the respondent presented the said cheque for encashment through his Bankers viz., Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Chinna Salem on 13.12.2018, the same was returned as unpaid on 14.12.2018 with an endorsement memo 'Drawers Signature Differs'.
(iii) Therefore, the respondent sent a legal notice to the Revision Petitioner on 09.01.2019 and the same was received by him on 14.01.2019. Inspite of receipt of notice, the Revision Petitioner neither issued any reply, nor settled the cheque amount. Hence, the respondent preferred a complaint against the Revision Petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi in C.C.No.42 of 2019 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
(iv) After recording the sworn statement of the respondent and after being satisfied that prima facie case has been made out to proceed further against the Revision Petitioner for the offence under section 138 of NI Act, the trial Court has issued summon to the Revision Petitioner. On the appearance of the Revision Petitioner, copies have been furnished and the substance of allegation has been put to him. The Revision Petitioner has denied the allegation and has claimed to be tried.
(v) After considering the arguments, the learned trial court has found the Revision Petitioner guilty of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments.
(vi) The learned trial court sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent within two months from the date of judgment and in default, to undergo a sentence of Simple Imprisonment of three months.
(vii) Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the Revision Petitioner has preferred the appeal before the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Villupuram @ Kallakurichi in Crl.A.No.7 of 2020 and the First Appellate Court, by its judgment dated 21.12.2021, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and directed the trial court to secure the Revision Petitioner/accused to undergo the sentence as per law.
(viii) Challenging the concurrent judgments rendered by both the courts below, the present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the Revision Petitioner.

5. During the pendency of the present Criminal Revision, the parties have entered into a Memorandum of Compromise dated 17.10.2022, which is taken on record and as per the terms of the Compromise, the following conditions were laid down between the parties which are quoted as u