MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Civil Decree Rendering Cheque a Security Renders Criminal Proceedings Under Section 138 N.I. Act Unsustainable: Supreme Court Quashes Conviction

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India quashed the criminal conviction of an appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, held that the existence of a civil decree declaring a cheque merely a security rendered the criminal proceedings unsustainable.

The primary legal issue centered around the initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in cases where a civil decree already exists concerning the same transaction.

The appellant, Prem Raj, was convicted in criminal courts for bouncing a cheque of Rs.2,00,000. Concurrently, a civil court had decreed the cheque as merely a security. The contention was whether a criminal court could proceed with conviction despite a civil court's decree on the same matter.

Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings: The Supreme Court observed, “Decisions of civil courts are binding on criminal courts," citing M/s. Karam Chand Ganga Prasad & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. The Court emphasized that criminal courts are not bound by civil decrees for sentencing and damages.

Conflict Between Civil and Criminal Findings: Drawing from Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah, the Court acknowledged permissible conflicts between civil and criminal courts due to differing standards of proof. However, it was held that the criminal court is bound by the civil court's declaration of the cheque as security in this specific case.

The Court concluded that the criminal proceedings against the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were unsustainable. It ordered the quashing of the conviction and the return of the damages imposed by the lower courts.

Date of Decision: April 02, 2024

Prem Raj vs. Poonamma Menon & Anr.

 

Latest Legal News