Madras High Court
CRL A/842/2026 of S.Radha Vs R.Maran on 25 September 2026
CRL A No. 842 of 2026
__________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL A No. 842 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011381292025}
1. S.Radha,
W/o.Late S.Sankaran,
Residing at
Ravi Murugan Akshaya Gardens,
Jaya Nagar 3rd Cross, Block1, Door No.S2, Vadavalli, Coimbatore - 641 041.
2. S.Janani,
D/o.Late.S.Sankaran,
Both are now Residing at
Ravi Murugan Akshaya Gardens,
Jaya Nagar 3rd Cross, Block1, Door No.S2, Vadavalli, Coimbatore - 641 041.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
R.Maran,
S/o.N.E.Ramalingam,
No.84/125, Defence Colony,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 413 of BNSS, praying to call for the records from the file of the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in C.A.No.266 of 2023 dated 25.04.2025, reversing the judgment of the Trial Court namely, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-III, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C.No.275 of 2016 dated 10.04.2023 and to set aside the same and allow the appeal.
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:46:36 pm )
CRL A No. 842 of 2026
__________
For Appellant(s):
Mr.M.G.Martin Manivannan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Baskaran and
Mr.T.Barathwaz,
Legal Aid Counsel
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants, who are the legal heirs of late S.Sankaran, challenging the judgment dated 25.04.2025 passed by the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in C.A.No.266 of 2023, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent/accused was allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-III, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C.No.275 of 2016, dated 10.04.2023, were set aside.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience and better understanding.
3. The husband of the first appellant and father of the second appellant, namely, late S.Sankaran, had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent/accused in C.C.No.275 of 2016.
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:46:36 pm )
CRL A No. 842 of 2026 __________
4. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant was acquainted with the respondent/accused through their common friend one Ravi Bharadwaj. According to the complainant, the respondent/accused approached him on 30.10.2013 and requested a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for his urgent business requirement. Believing the representation of the respondent/accused, the complainant advanced a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to him. The respondent/accused executed a promissory note and subsequently issued cheque bearing No.213246 dated 14.09.2015 drawn on Axis Bank for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards discharge of the said liability. The said cheque was presented for collection and was returned dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory notice dated 05.10.2015 demanding payment of the cheque amount. The respondent/accused received the notice on 06.10.2015, but failed to pay the amount, resulting in the filing of the complaint. The above facts are borne out from the judgment of the Trial Court.
5. The learned Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found the respondent/accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and directed him to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., in default to
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:46:36 pm )
CRL A No. 842 of 2026 __________
undergo one month simple imprisonment.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent/accused preferred C.A.No.266 of 2023 before the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The learned Appellate Court, by judgment dated 25.04.2025, allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent/accused had examined his brother as DW1 and projected the defence that he had borrowed the amount through one Ravi Bharadwaj and that the amount had subsequently been repaid through him. In support of the said defence, Ex.D1, the bank statement of DW1, was produced, which contained a debit entry of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of Ravi Bharadwaj on 03.10.2015. It was submitted that the respondent/accused had not disclosed the said defence during the trial and that, though Ravi Bharadwaj was admittedly available, he was not examined as a witness. Therefore, it was contended that the defence version could not have been accepted merely on the basis of Ex.D1.
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:46:36 pm )
CRL A No. 842 of 2026 __________
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused submitted that the respondent was a friend of the deceased complainant and that he had borrowed the amount through their common friend Ravi Bharadwaj. It was submitted that the amount had subsequently been repaid through the said Ravi Bharadwaj and that, therefore, there was no subsisting legally enforceable liability on the date of presentation of the cheque.
9. The learned Appellate Court, on considering the evidence of DW1 and Ex.D1, accepted the defence version and came to the conclusion that the respondent/accused had rebutted the statutory presumption by preponderance of probabilities. The Appellate Court consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
10. Be that as it may, during the pendency of the present appeal, the appellants and the respondent have arrived at an amicable settlement. The respondent has filed an affidavit of undertaking before this Court.
11. The undertaking filed by the respondent reads as follows:
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:46:36 pm )
CRL A No. 842 of 2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:46:36 pm )
CRL A No. 842 of 2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:46:36 pm )
CRL A No. 842 of 2026 __________
12. In the undertaking, the respondent has stated that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and that he has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.4,30,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Thousand only) to the appellants towards full and final settlement of the claim arising out of the cheque transaction.
13. It is further stated in the undertaking that, out of the said settlement amount of Rs.4,30,000/-, a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- had already been deposited before the Trial Court vide Receipt No.02961 dated 14.07.2023 and a further sum of Rs.1,50,000/- had been paid to the first appellant, S.Radha, by way of Demand Draft bearing D.D. Sr.No.012783042476 dated 24.09.2026, drawn on
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:46:36 pm )
CRL A No. 842 of 2026 __________
The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Ashok Nagar Branch, Chennai. Thus, a total sum of Rs.2,80,000/- has already been paid/deposited towards the settlement amount and the balance amount payable is Rs.1,50,000/-.
14. The respondent has further undertaken to pay the balance sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellants on or before 25.10.2026.
15. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the undertaking given by the respondent, the receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of Demand Draft by the first appellant is recorded. The sum of Rs.1,30,000/- deposited before the Trial Court in C.C.No.275 of 2016 shall be handed over to the appellants along with accrued interest, if any. The respondent has no objection to the same. Hence, notice to the respondent in respect of the said withdrawal is dispensed with. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the said amount without any further delay, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. The respondent shall pay the balance sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellants on or before 25.10.2026, in terms of the undertaking filed before this Court.
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:46:36 pm )
CRL A No. 842 of 2026 __________
17. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and considering that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is hereby compounded.
18. Consequently, the respondent is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In view of the compounding of the offence, no further order is necessary in respect of the judgment dated 25.04.2025 passed by the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in C.A.No.266 of 2023.
19. It is made clear that the undertaking given by the respondent forms part of this order. In the event of the respondent failing to pay the balance sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 25.10.2026, this order shall stand cancelled.
20. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Appeal is disposed of. 25-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No CDA
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:46:36 pm )
CRL A No. 842 of 2026 __________
To
1. The XVI Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-III, Saidapet, Chennai.
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:46:36 pm )
CRL A No. 842 of 2026 __________
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. CDA CRL A No. 842 of 2026 25-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:46:36 pm )