Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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