Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years

Madhya Pradesh HC  Mens Rea Requirement-Not Needed for Section 138 of NI Act, But Required for Section 420 of IPC.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that mens rea (the intention to commit a crime) at the time of issuing a cheque is not required to be proven under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), but is required under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision was made by Justice Anjuli Palo while hearing an appeal against an order passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal revision case. The case involved a complaint filed by the respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC, alleging that the applicants had entered into a sale agreement for agricultural land that they could not materialize due to the mortgage and sale of the land to others.

The respondent subsequently filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, which was later compromised. However, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate refused to issue directions under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) to register an FIR against the applicants and directed the police to submit information regarding the enquiry conducted on earlier complaints. The respondent filed a revision before the First Additional Sessions Judge, alleging that the trial court had wrongly rejected the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C, even though there were sufficient grounds to call for a report.

The High Court noted that applicant No.2 had executed a sale agreement in favour of the complainant for a sale consideration of Rs.10 lacs, receiving Rs.9 lacs and a balance of Rs.1 lac to be given at the time of registration. The bench further noted that there was an allegation against applicant No.1 that he mortgaged the land in favour of State Bank, Waraseoni on 06.11.2013. The High Court also noted that the allegations against applicant No.2 were that she sold her land to someone else on 23.10.2013 and subsequently entered into a sale agreement with the respondent. The necessary factors for cheating were thus available in the case, as the applicants were aware of the mortgage and previous sale deeds, and they executed a sale agreement with the complainant and his mother, receiving a total sale consideration of Rs.17 lacs.

The High Court further stated that while the mens rea is not required to be proved in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, it can be relevant in a prosecution under Section 420 of the IPC. The High Court noted that the ingredients of offences under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 138 of the NI Act are entirely different, with deception being the essential ingredient of the former offence. The High Court also stated that the dispute between the parties was not purely of civil nature, and hence, the case laws cited by the applicants were not applicable. The High Court dismissed the appeal.

Swapnil Sohane v. Sunil Arora

Latest Legal News