Patta Without SDM’s Prior Approval Is Void Ab Initio And Cannot Be Cancelled – It Never Legally Existed: Allahabad High Court Natural Guardian Means Legal Guardian: Custody Cannot Be Denied to Father Without Strong Reason: Orissa High Court Slams Family Court for Technical Rejection Affidavit Is Not a Caste Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Zila Panchayat Member's Election for Failing Eligibility Under OBC Quota Confession Recorded By DCP Is Legally Valid Under KCOCA – Bengaluru DCP Holds Rank Equivalent To SP: Karnataka High Court Difference of Opinion Cannot End in Death: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Maoist Ambush Killing SP Pakur and Five Policemen Mere Presence Of Beneficiary During Execution Does Not Cast Suspicion On Will: Delhi High Court Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence Cheating and Forgery Taint Even Legal Funds: No Safe Haven in Law for Laundered Money: Bombay High Court Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi High Court Contempt | Power to Punish Carries Within It the Power to Forgive: Supreme Court Sets Aside Jail Term for Director Who Criticised Judges Over Stray Dog Orders Seizure and Attachment Are Not Twins: Supreme Court Holds Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts in PC Act Cases Using CrPC Section 102 IBC | Pre-Existing Dispute Must Be Real, Not Moonshine: Supreme Court Restores Insolvency Proceedings, Says Admission Cannot Be Rejected Based on Spurious Defence Summons Under FEMA Are Civil in Nature – Section 160 CrPC Has No Role to Play: Delhi High Court Denies Exemption to Woman Petitioner from Personal Appearance Before ED Clear Admission in Ledger Is Sufficient for Summary Judgment: Delhi High Court Decrees ₹16.77 Cr in Favour of MSME Supplier Mere Allegation Under SC/ST Act Doesn’t Bar Bail When No Public Abuse Is Made Out: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Caste Atrocity Case Consent Of Girl Aged Above 16 Is Legally Valid Under Pre-2013 Law: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction Insurer Entitled to Recover Compensation from Owner When Driver Has No Licence or Fake Licence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Applies ‘Pay and Recover’ Doctrine Courts Cannot Rewrite Contracts Where Parties Have Failed to Clearly Define Property Terms: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal in Specific Performance Suit Even Illegal Appointments Cannot Be Cancelled Without Hearing: Patna High Court Quashes Mass Termination Of Absorbed University Staff Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’

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