Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

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