IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CRL) NO. 355 OF 2009   

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 6974 OF 2008

K. Subramanian ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

R.Rajathi Rep. by P.O.A. P. Kaliappan      ...Respondent (s)                

1

O R D E R

1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed to review  

and  recall  order  dated  September  11,  2008  passed  by  this  

Court  dismissing  SLP  (Crl.)  No.6974  of  2008  @  Crl.M.P.  

No.14586  of  2008,  on  the  ground  that  the  amount  of  

Rs.4,52,289/-  payable  by  the  petitioner  to  the  original  

complainant,  i.e.  the  respondent  herein,  is  already  paid  

pursuant  to  the  compromise  between  the  parties  and  the  

petitioner  be  permitted  to  compound  the  offence.   The  

petitioner has filed Crl.  M.P.  No.12801 of  2009,  to condone  

2

delay of 39 days, caused in filing review application and Crl.  

M.P. No.12803 of 2009 to permit him to compound the offence  

and  acquit  him by  setting  aside  the  conviction  recorded  in  

Criminal  Case  No.726  of  2003  by  the  learned  Judicial  

Magistrate  Karur.   The petitioner  has filed  another  Crl.M.P.  

No.12804  of  2009  with  a  prayer  to  permit  him to  produce  

affidavit sworn by him stating that pursuant to compromise  

between him and the respondent, he has paid Rs.4,52,289/-  

to the respondent as well  as affidavit sworn by P.Kaliappan,  

power of attorney holder of R.Rajathi stating that pursuant to  

3

the  compromise,  he  has  received  a  sum  of  

Rs.4,52,289/- as additional documents.

2. This  Court  has  heard  the  learned  Counsel  for  the  

petitioner  and  considered  the  documents  forming  part  of  

S.L.P.(Crl) No. 6974 of 2008 and this application.

3. From  the  record,  it  is  evident  that  the  petitioner  

purchased  yarn  from  Dharani.  A.  Traders  of  

R.Rajathi, on credit basis.  The petitioner had to pay  

a sum of Rs. 4,52,289/- to R.Rajathi.  In discharge  

of  his  debt,  the  petitioner  issued  three  cheques  

4

each  dated  March  7,  2003  for  a  sum  of  

Rs.1,51,600/-,  Rs.1,17,302/-  and  Rs.1,83,360/-  

respectively.   The  respondent  presented  the  

cheques in bank for realisation on March 7, 2003,  

but  they  were  returned  unpaid  with  remark  

“exceeding of arrangements’’.   

4. The  respondent  after  serving  statutory  notice  on  the  

petitioner  filed  complaint  in the  Court  of  Learned  

Judicial  Magistrate,  Karur  under  Section  138  of  

Negotiable Instruments Act.   

5

5. The Trial Court by Judgment dated September 21, 2004  

convicted  the  petitioner  under  Section  138  and  

sentenced him to Simple Imprisonment for one year  

and  fine  of  Rs.5000/-   in  default  Simple  

Imprisonment for 3 months.  Feeling aggrieved, the  

petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2004  

before  Sessions  Court  which  was  dismissed  on  

24.12.2004.   Thereupon,  the  petitioner  filed  

Criminal  Revision  Application  No.179  of  2005  

before  the  Madurai  Bench  of  Madras  High  Court  

6

which  was  dismissed  on  January  30,  2008.  

Therefore,  the petitioner filed SLP (Crl) No.6974 of  

2008 @ CRL.M.P. No.14586 of 2008 which was also  

dismissed  on  September  11,  2008.   Thereafter  a  

compromise was entered into and petitioner claims  

that he has paid Rs.4,52,289/- to respondent.  In  

support of this claim, the petitioner has produced  

affidavit sworn by him on December 1, 2008.  The  

petitioner  has  also  produced  affidavit  sworn  by  

P.Kaliappan, Power of Attorney holder of R.Rajathi  

7

on  December  1,  2008  mentioning  that  he  has  

received  a  sum  of  Rs.4,52,289/-  due  under  the  

dishonoured cheques in full discharge of the value  

of  cheques  and he is not willing to prosecute the  

petitioner.  The Learned Counsel for the petitioner  

states at the bar that the petitioner was arrested on  

July  30,  2008  and  has  undergone  the  sentence  

imposed on him by the Trial Court and confirmed  

by Sessions Court,  High Court  as well  as by this  

Court.  The two affidavits sought to be produced by  

8

petitioner  as additional  documents  would  indicate  

that indeed a compromise has taken place between  

petitioner and the respondent and the respondent  

has accepted the compromise offered by petitioner  

pursuant  to  which  he  has  received  a  sum  of  

Rs.4,52,289/-.   In  the  affidavit  filed  by  the  

respondent  a  prayer  is  made  to  permit  the  

petitioner  to  compound  the  offence  and close  the  

proceedings.

9

6. Having regard to the salutary provisions of Section 147 of  

Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 of  

the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the  

opinion that in view of the compromise arrived at  

between  the  parties,  the  petitioner  should  be  

permitted  to  compound  the  offence  committed  by  

him under Section 138 of the Code.

7. For the foregoing reasons CRL.M.P. No.12801 of 2009 in  

which  prayer  to  condone  the  delay  of  39  days  

caused in  filing  review  application is  allowed  and  

1

delay is condoned.  The Review Petition succeeds.  

The  Order  dated  September  11,  2008  dismissing  

SLP (Crl) No.6974 of 2008 @ CRL.M.P. No.14586 of  

2008 is recalled.  The said SLP is restored on file  

with its original number.

8. The CRL.M.P. No.12804 of 2009 in which the prayer is  

made  by  petitioner  to  permit  him  to  produce  

affidavits  sworn by him on December  1,  2008 as  

well  as  affidavit  sworn  by  P.  Kaliappan  power  of  

attorney holder of R. Rajathi on December 1, 2008,  

1

as  additional  documents  is  allowed.   CRL.  M.P.  

No.12803  of  2009  in  which  the  petitioner  has  

prayed to permit him to compound the offence and  

acquit him by setting aside the conviction recorded  

in Criminal case No. 726/2003 under Section 138  

of  the  Negotiable  Instruments  Act  by  Learned  

Judicial  Magistrate,  Karur  is  allowed.   The  

petitioner  is  permitted  to  compound  the  offence.  

The Order of conviction and sentence  recorded by  

all the Courts are hereby set aside and petitioner is  

1

acquitted of the charge leveled against him.  All the  

applications  including  Review  Petition  accordingly  

stand disposed of as also SLP (Crl.) No.6974 of 2008  

@  CRL.M.P.  No.14586  of  2008  in  terms  of  this  

Order.

………………………………..…J.             (J.M. PANCHAL)

………………………………..…J.                                (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

1

NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 5, 2009.

1