NI Act S.147's Non-Obstante Clause Allows Compounding of S.138 Offence at Any Stage, Even After Conviction is Confirmed: Madras High Court - 2025-10-01

Madras High Court: Offence Under S.138 NI Act Can Be Compounded at Any Stage, Even Post-Conviction

Chennai, TN – In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of compounding offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), the Madras High Court has held that an offence under Section 138 can be compounded at any stage, even after a conviction has been upheld by an appellate court. Justice Shamim Ahmed, invoking the Court's inherent powers, set aside a conviction in a cheque bounce case following an amicable settlement between the parties.

The Court emphasized that Section 147 of the NI Act, which makes offences under the Act compoundable, begins with a non-obstante clause, giving it an overriding effect over the general procedures laid down in Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

---

Case Background

The case originated from a business transaction where M/s. S.L.Suhail Ahmed & Sons issued three cheques amounting to ₹6,76,601 to M/s. Eastern Tech & Co. The cheques were dishonoured for "insufficient funds" in 2014.

Consequently, the trial court convicted L. Suhail Ahmed under Section 138 of the NI Act, sentencing him to four months of simple imprisonment and directing him to pay the cheque amount as compensation. This conviction was subsequently confirmed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in 2021. The accused then filed the present criminal revision petition before the Madras High Court.

During the pendency of this revision, the parties, with the intervention of family and well-wishers, reached a settlement for a sum of ₹4,20,001. A joint compromise memo was filed before the High Court detailing the terms of the settlement.

---

Key Arguments and Legal Principles

The central legal question before the High Court was whether a conviction, already confirmed on appeal, could be nullified based on a subsequent compromise.

• Petitioner's Stance: The counsel for the petitioner argued that the primary objective of Section 138 is compensatory, not punitive. Relying on the special provision of Section 147 of the NI Act and citing the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H , they contended that the offence could be compounded at any stage to secure the ends of justice.

• State's Opposition: The Government Advocate vehemently opposed the plea, arguing that allowing a compromise after conviction would amount to a misuse of the legal process.

---

Court's Reasoning and Precedents

Justice Shamim Ahmed undertook a detailed analysis of the interplay between Section 147 of the NI Act and Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The Court observed that the non-obstante clause in Section 147 ("Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure...") clearly indicates the legislature's intent for the special law to prevail over the general law.

The Court observed, “So, in light of the compass provided, a dispute in the nature of a complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act, can be settled by way of compromise irrespective of any other legislation including Cr.P.C… The special law would prevail over general law.”

The judgment highlighted that the purpose of incorporating penalties for cheque dishonour was to enhance the credibility of negotiable instruments and promote a culture of their use. The Court further noted that the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be prioritized over the punitive one.

“It is quite obvious that with respect to the offence of dishonour of cheques, it is the compensatory aspect of the remedy which should be given priority over the punitive aspect,” the Court stated.

---

Final Decision and Implications

Accepting the compromise memo, the Madras High Court disposed of the criminal revision petition. The Court annulled the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts, acquitting the petitioner.

The judgment directed that the respondents (legal heirs of the original complainant) are permitted to withdraw the balance settlement amount of ₹2,67,660, which had been previously deposited by the petitioner in the trial court.

This ruling reaffirms the legal position that the doors for settlement in cheque bounce cases remain open at all stages of litigation, reinforcing the compensatory nature of the NI Act and providing a pathway for litigants to achieve a quietus to their disputes.