Madras High Court

Valliyoor Court: Bounced Cheque Conviction Overturned After Settlement

Updated
Sep 28, 2025 4:44 PM
News Image

Summary: N. Santhana Vinoji, initially sentenced for a bounced cheque case, is set free after reaching an agreement with the complainant, D. John Irudhaya Kennadi. The court, led by Judge Shamim Ahmed, accepted the settlement and canceled the conviction.

The Case Background

N. Santhana Vinoji, owner of Nehru Tiles, was found guilty for a bounced cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The local court at Valliyoor sentenced him to 1.5 years in jail and a fine of ₹9,00,000. If he didn't pay, he would have faced an extra four months in jail. His appeal was rejected by a higher court in Tirunelveli, which kept the original sentence.

The Compromise Agreement

On September 11, 2025, an agreement was reached between Vinoji's wife and the complainant, Kennadi. The terms included:

  • Kennadi received an initial payment of ₹50,000 on September 6, 2025.
  • The rest of the money was given on September 11, 2025.
  • Kennadi agreed to drop the case and confirmed he received all the money owed.

"Since the 1st party received the amount as full settlement, he is not interested in continuing the case against the husband of the 2nd party, who is in jail from Palayamkottai."

Legal Arguments and Court's Decision

Vinoji's lawyer argued for ending the case, pointing out past cases where courts allowed settlements even after a guilty verdict. Judge Shamim Ahmed considered these arguments and the spirit of compromise, deciding that canceling the conviction would be fair.

"The goal of the rule being mainly to pay back, the punishment part being mainly to make sure the payment happens."

Final Verdict

Judge Shamim Ahmed canceled the conviction and ordered Vinoji's release from jail without any conditions. This decision was based on the agreement and the legal rules that allow such settlements.

  • The conviction and sentence were canceled.
  • Vinoji was declared not guilty because of the agreement.

This case shows how being flexible with the law and reaching an agreement can lead to outcomes that satisfy both sides, even after someone is found guilty.