Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20816
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J
Ramya – Appellant
Versus
S.S.Sathish Kumar – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition | Crl.A.No.53 of 2025 | STC.No.41 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Sasikumar
A compromise between parties allows for quashing a prior conviction under criminal law when mutual settlement is achieved.
Headnote:The present Criminal Revision Petition challenges the judgment of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge confirming the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Following a Joint Memo of Compromise, which settled all claims, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the prior judgments, and acquitted the petitioner. The outcome is based on procedural considerations and mutual settlement between the parties.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment under appeal involves the conviction under section 138. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties reached a compromise which alters the court's handling of the case. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. the judgment of conviction is set aside due to the compromise. (Para 5) |
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred the above revision challenging the judgment passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District, in C.A.No.53 of 2025 dated 25.10.2025; confirming the judgment of the learned Magistrate convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and sentenced him to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the respondent within one month, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
2.Pending the Revision, the parties have entered into a compromise and have filed a Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect. As per the Joint Memo of Compromise, the respondent has agreed to receive Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) in full and final settlement of all his claims. It is also stated that the respondent has received the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on
26.02.2026.
3.The petitioner is present. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is unable to appear in person.
4.The Joint Memo of Compromise is signed by the petitioner, the respondent and the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. The said Compromise Memo is taken on record and shall be treated as a part and parcel of this order.
5.In view of the Joint Memo of Compromise and considering the nature of the offence, this Court permits the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District, in C.A.No.53 of 2025 dated 25.10.2025, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Tiruchengode, Namakkal District in S.T.C.No.41 of 2022, are hereby set aside. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed in terms of the above Joint Memo of Compromise and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded. The bail bond, if any, executed shall stand discharged.
