| The Tax Publishers 2022 TaxPub(CL) 2829 (SC) : (2022) 173 SCL 0522 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881
Section 138 Section 420
Cheque holder filed complaint under NI Act and IPC on similar set of allegations of fact, wherein different views were given by different High Courts, therefore, question of law as to whether, on similar set of allegations of fact, the drawer can be tried for an offence under NI Act and also for offences under IPC was referred to a larger Bench for decision.
|
Dishonour of cheque - Complaints filed under IPC as well as NI Act - Different views of High Courts barring prosecution of same offence of subsequent cases - Whether, on similar set of allegations of fact, drawer can be tried for an offence under NI Act and also for offences under IPC
Drawer issued a cheque in favour of cheque holder, which was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. The lender filed a complaint under sections 120B, 406, 420 and 34 of IPC. However, the lender also filed a complaint under section 138 of NI Act. The High Court quashed the proceedings under IPC on the ground that only offence under section 138 of NI Act can be made out and continuance of the proceedings for offences under sections 406, 420, 120B and 34 of IPC would amount to abuse of process of the Court. The lender filed an appeal against the order on the ground that in judgment of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel's case, it was held that requirement to prove an offence under the NI Act and the IPC is different, and there may be some overlapping of facts but ingredients of the offences are entirely different, therefore, the subsequent cases are not barred by any statutory provisions. Held: In case of G. Sagar Suri, it was concluded that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence on the same facts, therefore, the prosecution under section 420 of the IPC is barred by section 300(1) of Cr.P.C and accordingly liable to be quashed. The views in the judgments relied by both the parties are in conflict of law with each other on the legal issue. Therefore, question of law as to whether on similar set of allegations of fact the drawer can be tried for an offence under NI Act and also for offences under IPC, was referred to a Larger Bench for decision.
REFERRED : Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao (2011) 106 SCL 233 (SC) : 2011 TaxPub(CL) 0268 (SC), Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 TaxPub(CL) 0359 (SC) , Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2012) 7 SCC 621, V.S. Reddy and Sons v. Muthyala Ramalinga Reddy [Crl. Appeal No. 1285 of 2015, dated 28-9-2015]
FAVOUR : Matter Referred to Lerger Bench
A.Y. :
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. ABDUL NAZEER & J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan
Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2864 of 2019
11 August, 2022
Petitioner by: S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Advocate, Y. Arunagiri, Advocate, P. Soma Sundaram, AOR, G.R. Vikash, Advocate, A.S. Vairawan, Advocate, R. Sudhakaran, Advocate, Subrahmanya Banu, Advocate, Shalini Mishra, Advocate and Puspita B., Advocate
Respondent by: T. Harish Kumar, AOR, Navneet Dugar, Raghunatha Sethupathy B., Prasanth Padmanaban and Subham Kothari, Advocates
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|