CRL RC(MD). No.58 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 14/07/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI CRL RC(MD). No.58 of 2020 and CRL MP(MD). No.2096 of 2023 V.Palanisamy ... Petitioner Vs C. Sivasamy ... Respondent PRAYER :- Petition filed to set aside the judgment dated 29.11.2019 made in Crl.A.No.68 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karur, confirming the judgment and sentence passed in C.C.No.11 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate/ Fast Track Court, Karur, dated 09.07.2019, convincing the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and award compensation sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the respondent under Section 357(3) of r.P.C., and allow the Criminal Revision Petition. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD). No.58 of 2020 For Petitioner : M/s. S. Gokulraj, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.V.Nagarajan ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order in Crl.A.No.68/2019 dated 29.11.2019 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karur, confirming the judgment and sentence passed in C.C.No.11 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate/ Fast Track Court, Karur, dated 09.07.2019. 2. The gist of the complaint is that the petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent / complainant on 02.05.2016 with assurance to repay the same by executing a promissory note and evaded to return and finally given Allahabad Bank cheque dated 11.07.2016 and when the same was presented, the same was returned on the ground that 'insufficient fund' and hence the complainant preferred the complaint. A case has been registered before the learned Judicial 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD). No.58 of 2020 Magistrate(FTC), Karur, in C.C.No.11 of 2017. By order dated 09.07.2019, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act, sentencing him to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and award compensation sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the respondent. An appeal has been filed in Crl.A.No.68 of 2019 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karur, and by order dated 29.11.2019, the same was dismissed, confirming the order of the trial Court. Seeking to set aside the same, this Criminal Revision Case is filed. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent are known to each other and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 13.07.2026 has been filed before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that compromise was arrived at between the parties and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid to the respondent / complainant by way of a demand draft, drawn on 10.07.2026 in Karur Vysya Bank, Tirupur SR Nagar Branch, in D.D.No.260777. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD). No.58 of 2020 5. The petitioner and the respondent / defacto complainant are present before this Court in person and are identified by themselves. The defacto complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings against the petitioner herein. This Court is satisfied that the compromise is voluntary and not the result of any coercion or undue influence. 6. The law relating to quashment of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is well settled. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is of wide amplitude and may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, provided the dispute is essentially private in nature and the quashment would secure the ends of justice. The Court, however, drew a clear distinction between offences arising out of personal or matrimonial disputes, commercial transactions and similar private wrongs, and serious or heinous offences having grave 1 2012 (10) SCC 303 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD). No.58 of 2020 impact on society, holding that the latter category cannot ordinarily be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement. 7. The said principles were succinctly crystallised in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat2, wherein the Supreme Court, after surveying the earlier precedents, laid down broad propositions governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. It was emphasised that the paramount consideration is whether the continuance of the criminal proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interests of justice, and whether the dispute predominantly bears a civil or private character, rendering the possibility of conviction remote and bleak. 8. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan3, the Supreme Court reiterated and clarified the limitations on such power, holding that offences of a serious nature, particularly those involving mental depravity, grave violence, or offences against society at large, cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, even if the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The Court further cautioned that while 2 2017 (9) SCC 641 3 2019 (5) SCC 688 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD). No.58 of 2020 examining compromise quash petitions, the High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the conduct of the accused, and the stage of the proceedings, and the overall impact on society and must satisfy itself that the settlement is voluntary and not the result of coercion or undue influence. 9. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court has carefully examined the nature and gravity of the allegations, the relationship between the parties, the conduct of the petitioners, the stage of the proceedings, and the voluntary nature of the compromise. 10. The dispute in question is predominantly private in character and does not involve any offence having serious or grave impact on society at large. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the possibility of conviction is rendered remote and bleak. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would therefore serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD). No.58 of 2020 11. Accordingly, the judgment in Crl.A.No.68 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karur, dated 29.11.2019, is set aside and this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The joint compromise memo dated 13.07.2026 shall form part and parcel of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 14.07.2026 NCC : yes / no Index : yes / no pnn To 1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Karur. 2. The Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Karur. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD). No.58 of 2020 L. VICTORIA GOWRI,J pnn ORDER IN CRL RC(MD). No.58 of 2020 and CRL MP(MD). No.2096 of 2023 Date : 14/07/2026 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis