Heard Mr.P. Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.A.Tamilarasan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 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.52 of dated 11.12.2020 by the learned Addl. District (Fast Track) Court, Mettur, confirming the conviction and sentence made in S.T.C.No.327 of 2020, dated 01.07.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Mettur.

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 2/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- within a period of two months, failing which, to undergo SI for six months. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court was also confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

4. The facts leading to filing of this Criminal Revision Case is as follows;

(i)The revision petitioner, who is a family friend of the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent herein on 06.12.2015 as a hand loan in order to meet out his business expenses

(ii) When the respondent demanded repayment of loan, the revision petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.791065 dated 05.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Tiruppur Branch in favour of the respondent.

(iii) Thereafter, when the said cheque was presented by the respondent through his Banker viz., ICICI Bank Limited, Mettur Branch for encashment, the same was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement 'Funds Insufficient' on the very same day.

(iv) Hence the respondent issued a legal notice dated 18.02.2016 calling upon the revision petitioner to pay the dishonoured cheque amount within 15 days and the same was returned to the respondent advocate on 3/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 01.03.2017 with an endorsement 'intimation given, door locked'.

(v) Since the revision petitioner being well aware of the legal notice, neither replied for the same and nor paid the cheque amount to the respondent, he filed a complaint for the offence of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the revision petitioner in STC.No.327 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur.

5. 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.

6. After considering the arguments, the learned trial court has found the Revision Petitioner guilty of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Revision Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for a period of one year and also directed him to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- within a period of two months, 4/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 failing which, to undergo SI for six months.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment, the Revision Petitioner has preferred the appeal in C.A.No.52 of 2020 before the Addl. District (Fast Track) Court, Mettur and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2020 by confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court in STC.No.327 of 2020 and it directed to secure the Revision Petitioner to undergo the sentence and to pay the compensation amount. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the both courts below, the Revision Petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case before this Court.

8. During the pendency of the present Criminal Revision, the parties have entered into a Compromise Deed, dated 14.12.2024 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 under;

COMPROMISE DEED 'This Compromise Deed (hereinafter referred to as the 'Compromise Deed') is entered at Mettur into on this day of 14th December, 2024 by and between:

J5, Dr.Subbarayan Nagar, Mettur Dam 636 40. 2.

Mr.S.palanivel Rajan, Son of S.Subramanian Aadhar cad No.5662 3853 3739 aged about 43, residing at D.No.5-151- J5, Dr.Subbrayan Nagar, Mettur Dam 636 40. 3.

Mrs.S.Preetha, Daughter of S.Subramanian, Aadhar card No.2591 9024 1327 aged about 40, residing at D.No.5-151- J5, Dr.Subbrayan Nagar, Mettur Dam 636 40, above said three person hereinafter called the 'Second Party' NOW THIS COMPROMISE DEED WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:-

As per direction of the Hon'ble High Court on 22.07.2021 the first party herein deposit rs.1,00,000/- bearing receipts No.431615. In meanwhile the sole respondent S.Subamanian, died on 13.05.2021, leaving behind the wife, son, and duaghter as his legal heirs viz., 1. S.Jaya, Wife of S.Subramanian, 2. S.Palanivel Rajan, Son of S.Subramanian, 3. S.Preetha, Daughter of S.Subramanian, the said Second Party' herein were impleaded as respondent in Crl.R.C.No.285 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Madras High Court.

The pending above said Crl.RC, both parties decided to compromise the issues amicably as out of court settlement and the first party herein paid full and final cheque amount Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) by cash to second party. The second party has received the same. The both parties submits that there is no further claim against each other in respect of above said criminal case. The second 7/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 party herein no objection to discharge the first party from above criminal case.

The second party herein no objection from the receive the deposited Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) made in S.T.C.No.327 of 2020 before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Mettur. As per direction of Hon'ble Madras High Court Crl.M.P.No.5733 of 2021 in Crl.RC.No.285 of 2021 o 22.07.2021 bearing receipts No.431615.

9. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that pending Criminal Revision, both the parties have entered into a Compromise Deed dated 14.12.2024 to the effect that the Criminal Revision case shall be settled in accordance with the terms and conditions as contained therein.

10. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that in terms of Compromise Deed dated 14.12.2024, the Revision Petitioner /accused paid the entire cheque amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by cash to the respondents 1 to 3/legal heirs of the deceased respondent and the Respondents 1 to 3 also hereby acknowledged receipt of sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. He further submitted that at the time of suspending the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.5733 of 2021 in Crl.R.C.No.285 of 2021 o 22.07.2021, this Court imposed a condition on the 8/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 revision petitioner to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- to the credit of STC.No.327 of 2020 before the trial court. Accordingly, as per the direction of this Court, the revision petitioner had deposited Rs.1 lakh vide receipt No.431615 before the trial court. In view of the mutual settlement arrived between the parties, the revision petitioner is seeking permission of this court to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was already deposited before the trial court in STC.No.327 of 2020.

11. Mr.A.Tamilarasan, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that his client has already received the disputed cheque amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cash and the Respondent hereby acknowledges receipt of sum of Rs.3,00,000/- . He further submitted that the respondents have no objection for the revision petitioner to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- which was already deposited before the trial court.

12. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the present Revision has been filed during 2021 before this Court and on the basis of change in circumstances, as the parties have entered into Memorandum of Compromise, it was prayed to this Court to compound the offence. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the Revision 9/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 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 320 Cr.P.C., irrespective of which stage, the parties are compromising with the kind leave of this Hon'ble Court.

13. 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 formulatedthe guidelines for compounding the offence under section 138 N.I. Act wherein in para 21, it was pleased to observe as under :

14. 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 :

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 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 12/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 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 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'.

15. 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:-

16. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Vinay Devanna 13/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 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 :

17. 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 resintegra 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.

18. Per contra, Mr.A.Gopinath, the learned Govt. Advocate (crl.side) 14/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 who appeared for the State and assisted this Court in the matter, 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.

19. The learned Govt. Advocate (crl.side) also 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.

20. I have heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Govt. Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the State and perused the materials placed on record.

21. Considering the facts as narrated above, the following question arose for consideration.

15/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 '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'

22. Before answering the aforesaid question as framed, I shall examine the relevant provision of the Cr.P.C ., as well as the Negotiable Instrument Act . I may extract Section 320 of Cr.P.C., and section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Section 320 Cr.P.C. - Compounding of Offences -

1) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), specified in the first two 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 Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), 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 any 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) may be compounded in like manner.

4) (a) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to contract on his behalf may, with the 16/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 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 401 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 :’ "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable."

25. I have to refer the compromise deed which is on the record for 17/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 proper adjudication :-

J5, Dr.Subbarayan Nagar, Mettur Dam 636 40. 2.

Mr.S.palanivel Rajan, Son of S.Subramanian Aadhar cad No.5662 3853 3739 aged about 43, residing at D.No.5-151- J5, Dr.Subbrayan Nagar, Mettur Dam 636 40. 3.

Mrs.S.Preetha, Daughter of S.Subramanian, Aadhar card No.2591 9024 1327 aged about 40, residing at D.No.5-151- J5, Dr.Subbrayan Nagar, Mettur Dam 636 40, above said three person hereinafter called the 'Second Party' NOW THIS COMPROMISE DEED WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:-

As per direction of the Hon'ble High Court on 22.07.2021 the first party herein deposit rs.1,00,000/- bearing receipts No.431615. In meanwhile the sole respondent S.Subamanian, died on 13.05.2021, leaving behind the wife, son, and duaghter as his legal heirs viz., 1. S.Jaya, Wife of S.Subramanian, 2. S.Palanivel Rajan, Son of S.Subramanian, 3. S.Preetha, Daughter of S.Subramanian, the said Second Party' herein were impleaded as respondent in Crl.R.C.No.285 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Madras High Court.

The pending above said Crl.RC, both parties decided to compromise the issues amicably as out of court settlement and the first party herein paid full and final cheque amount Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) by cash to second party. The second party has received the same. The both parties submits that there is no further claim against each other in respect of above said criminal case. The second party herein no objection to discharge the first party from above criminal case.

The second party herein no objection from the receive the deposited Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) made in S.T.C.No.327 of 2020 before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Mettur. As per direction of Hon'ble Madras High Court Crl.M.P.No.5733 of 2021 in Crl.RC.No.285 of 2021 o 22.07.2021 bearing receipts No.431615.'

23. 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 19/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 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

24. 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.

25. 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 20/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 the present proceedings.

26. 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.

27. In the case of Krishan Vs. Krishnaveni, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 241, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that though the inherent power of the High Court is very wide, yet the same must be exercised sparingly and cautiously particularly in a case where the applicant is shown to have already invoked the revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code. Only in cases where the High Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not 21/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 correct, the High Court may in its discretion prevent the abuse of process or miscarriage of justice by exercising its power.

28. In the case of S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar , 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.

29. For adjudicating the instant case, the facts as stated hereinabove are very relevant. Here, the Revision Petitioner has attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of this court.

30. I am not in agreement that when the adjudication of a criminal offence has reached to the state of revisional level, there cannot be any compromise without permission of the court in all case including the offence punishable under ' N.I. Act ' or the offence mentioned in Table-1 (one) can be 22/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 compounded only if High Court or Court of Sessions grants permission for such purpose. The Court presently, concerned with an offence punishable under ' N.I. Act '.

31. It is evident that the permissibility of the compounding of an offence is linked to the perceived seriousness of the offence and the nature of the remedy provided. On this point I can refer to the following extracts from an academic commentary [Cited from : K.N.C. Pillai, R.V. Kelkar's Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition :

32. Section 147 of NI Act begins with a non obstante clause and such clause is being used in a provision to communicate that the provision shall prevail despite anything to the contrary in any other or 23/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 different legal provisions. So, in light of the compass provided, a dispute in the nature of complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act, can be settled by way of compromise irrespective of any other legislation including Cr.P.C . In general and section 320 (1)(2) or (6) of the Cr.P.C . in particular. The scheme of section 320 Cr.P.C. deals mainly with procedural aspects; but it simultaneously crystallizes certain enforceable rights and obligation. Hence, this provision has an element of substantive legislation and therefore, it can be said that the scheme of section 320 does not lay down only procedure; but still, the status of the scheme remains under a general law of procedure and as per the accepted proposition of law, the special law would prevail over general law. For the sake of convenience, I would like to quote the observations of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Indore vs. Ratnaprabha reported in (AIR 1977 SC 308) which reads as under :

While therefore, the requirement of the law is that the reasonable letting value should determine the annual value of the building, it has also been specifically provided that this would be so "notwithstanding anything contained in 24/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 any other law for the time being in force". It appears to us that it would be a proper interpretation of the provisions of clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act to hold that in a case where the standard rent of a building has been fixed under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, and there is nothing to show that there has been fraud or collusion, that would be its reasonable letting value, but, where this is not so, and the building has never been let out and is being used in a manner where the question of fixing its standard rent does not arise, it would be permissible to fix its reasonable rent without regard to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 . This view will, in our opinion, give proper effect to the non- obstante clause in clause (b) with due regard to its other provision that the letting value should be "reasonable"

33. The expression 'special law' means a provision of law, which is not applicable generally but which applies to a particular or specific subject or class of subjects. Section 41 of Indian Penal Code stands on the same footing and defines the phrase special law. In this connection I would like to quote the well accepted proposition of law emerging from various observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in different decisions as a gist of the principle and it can be summarised as under:

34. In reference to offence under section 138 of N.I. Act read with 25/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 section 147 of the said Act, the parties are at liberty to compound the matter at any stage even after the dismissal of the revision/appeal. Even a convict undergoing imprisonment with the liability to pay the amount of fine imposed by the court and/or under an obligation to pay the amount of compensation if awarded, as per the scheme of N.I. Act , can compound the matter. The complainant i.e. person or persons affected can pray to the court that the accused, on compounding of the offence may be released by invoking jurisdiction of this court. If the parties are asked to approach the Apex Court then, what will be situation, is a question which is required to be considered in the background of another accepted progressive and pragmatic principle accepted by our courts that if possible, the parties should be provided justice at the door step. The phrase "justice at the door step" has taken the court to think and reach to a conclusion that it can be considered and looked into as one of such special circumstances for the purpose of compounding the offence under section 147 of the N. I. Act.

35. It is also well settled that the operation or effect of a general Act may be curtailed by special Act even if a general Act contains a non obstante clause. But here is not a case where the language of section 320 Cr.P.C. 26/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 would come in the way in recording the compromise or in compounding the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act. On the contrary provisions of section 147 of N.I. Act though starts with a non obstante clause, is an affirmative enactment and this is possible to infer from the scheme that has overriding effect on the intention of legislature reflected in section 320 Cr.P.C.

36. Merely because the litigation has reached to a revisional stage or that even beyond that stage, the nature and character of the offence would not change automatically and it would be wrong to hold that at revisional stage, the nature of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act should be treated as if the same is falling under table-II of Section 320 IPC. I would like to reproduce some part of the statement of objects and reasons of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 " The Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 was amended by the Banking,Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 wherein a new Chapter XVII was incorporated for penalties in case of dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque. These provisions were incorporated with a view to encourage the culture of use of cheques and enhancing the credibility of the instrument. The existing provisions in the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981 , namely Section 138 to 142 in ChapterXVII have been found deficient in dealing with dishonour of cheques. Notonly the 27/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 punishment provided in the Act has proved to be inadequate, theprocedure prescribed for the courts to deal with such matters has beenfound to be cumbersome. The Courts are unable to dispose of such casesexpeditiously in a time bound manner in view of the procedure contained in the Act.

2. A large number of cases are reported to be pending under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in various courts in the country. Keeping in view the large number of complaints under the saidAct, pending in various courts, a Working Group was constituted to review Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 181 and make recommendations as to what changes were needed to effectively achieve the purpose of that Section.

3. ..........…

4. Keeping in view the recommendations of the Standing Committee on finance and other R/SCR.A/2491/2018 ORDER representations, it has been decided to bring out, inter alia the following amendments in the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, namely.

(ii) xxxxxx

(iii) xxxxxx

(iv) to prescribe procedure for dispensing with preliminary evidence of the complainant.

(vii) to make the offences under the Act compoundable. .....…

6. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects."

37. In a commentary the following observations have been made with 28/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 regard to offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act. [ Cited from :

38. 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.

39. So the intention of the legislature and object of enacting "Banking", Public Financial Institutions and the Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amended Act) 1988 and subsequent enactment, i.e., Negotiable Instruments (Amendment & Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2002 leads this Court to a conclusion that the offence made punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is not only an offence qua property but it is also of the nature of an economic 29/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 offence, though not covered in the list of statutes enacted in reference to Section 468 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the parties, in reference to offence under Section 138 N.I. Act read with Section 147 of the said Act are at liberty to compound the matter at any stage even after the dismissal of the proceedings.

40. In the instant case, the problem herein is with the tendency of litigants to belatedly choose compounding as a means to resolve their dispute, furthermore, the arguments on behalf of the Govt. Advocate (crl.side) on the fact that unlike Section 320 Cr.P.C., Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides no explicit guidance as to what stage compounding can or cannot be done and whether compounding can be done at the instance of the complainant or with the leave of the court.

41. I am also conscious of the view that judicial endorsement of the above quoted guidelines as given in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) could be seen as an act of judicial law making and therefore an intrusion into the legislative domain. It must be kept in mind that Section 147 of the Act does not carry any guidance on how to proceed with the compounding of offences under the Act. I have already explained that the scheme contemplated under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be followed in the 30/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 strict sense.

42. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the parties, in reference to offence under Section 138 N.I. Act read with Section 147 of the said Act are at liberty to compound the matter at any stage. The complainant i.e. the person or persons affected can pray to the court that the accused, on compounding of the offence may be released by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

43. Generally, the powers available would not have been exercised when a statutory remedy under the law is available, however, considering the peculiar set of facts and circumstances it would not be in the interest of justice to relegate the parties to the court. Additionally when both the parties have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and there is no bar on exercise of powers and the inherent powers of this court can always be invoked for imparting justice and bringing a quietus to the issue between the parties.

44. As discussed above, the court is inclined to hold accordingly only because there is no formal embargo in section 147 of the N.I. Act. This principle would not help any convict in any other law where other applicable independent provisions are existing as the offence punishable under section 31/ 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 138 of the N.I. Act is distinctly different from the normal offences made punishable under Chapter XVII of IPC (i.e. the offences qua property).

45. In view of the observations and in view of the guidelines as laid down in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra) and also in view of the observations made in the judgment referred above 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 32/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 required to be permitted.

46. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in terms of Memorandum of Compromise arrived at between the parties to this litigation out of Court. The impugned conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.52 of 2020, dated11.12.2020 by the learned Addl. District (Fast Track) Court, Mettur, confirming the conviction and sentence made in STC.No.327 of 2020, dated 01.07.2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Mettur are hereby modified. The conviction and sentence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in STC.No.327 of 2020 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.

47.While disposing of this Criminal Revision Case by recording the Compromise Deed entered into between the parties, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner requests this Court to grant permission to the revision petitioner to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- lying in the credit of STC.No.327 of 2020 before the trial court and a direction may be issued to that effect.

33/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021

48. In view of the above, the Revision Petitioner viz., K.Natarajan, Proprietor M/s.ASP Garments is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs only) which was already deposited vide Receipt No.431615 by the Revision Petitioner in STC.No.327 of 2020 with accrued interest, if any, from the trial court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order on making appropriate application before the trial court.

49. Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned trial court concerned immediately.

50. In the result, ● The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in terms of Joint Compromise Memo dated 14.12.2024.

● The impugned conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.52 of 2020 dated 11.12.2020 by the learned Addl. District (Fast Track) Court, Mettur, confirming the conviction and sentence made in STC.No.327 of 2020 dated 01.07.2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Mettur are hereby modified.

● The conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner by 34/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 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 Revision Petitioner - K.Natarajan, Proprietor M/s.ASP Garments is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- already deposited by the Revision Petitioner before the trial court vide receipt No.431615 in STC.No.327 of 2020 along with accrued interest, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order on making appropriate application before the trial court.

23.01.2025 msr Index:yes/no Internet: Reportable To

1. The Addl. District (Fast Track) Court, Mettur

2. Judicial Magistrate-I, Mettur.

35/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.285/2021 SHAMIM AHMED, J.

msr PREDELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN Crl.R.C.No.285 of 2021 23.01.2025 36/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis