High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Simply Issuing A Cheque From A Closed Account Did Not Automatically Prove Intent To Cheat: High Court of Jharkhand Overturns Convictions in Cheating and Cheque Bounce Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has set aside the convictions of Shatrughan Chiraniya for cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and cheque dishonor under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The case, presided over by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary, highlighted key issues concerning the evidence of dishonest intention and procedural correctness in the filing of the complaint.

The case originated from a complaint by Kudus Ansari, alleging that Shatrughan Chiraniya had issued a cheque for Rs. 4,85,000, which subsequently bounced due to the account being closed. This followed an unfulfilled oral agreement regarding the sale of land. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajmahal, initially convicted Chiraniya in 2017, a decision upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal, in 2019.

Lack of Evidence for Dishonest Intention: The High Court found that the necessary element of dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, required to sustain a conviction under Section 420 IPC, was not proven.

Premature Filing of Complaint: The court ruled that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed prematurely, before the cause of action had fully arisen, as mandated by the timeline established in relevant legal provisions and precedents.

Revocation of Convictions: Both convictions were overturned, with the court granting Kudus Ansari the liberty to file a fresh complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act within two months.

Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary’s detailed analysis highlighted several critical points:

Ingredients of Cheating Not Met: The court underscored that the prosecution failed to establish that Chiraniya had a dishonest intention from the start. It was noted that simply issuing a cheque from a closed account did not automatically prove intent to cheat.

Procedural Lapses: The judgment emphasized that the lower courts did not adequately consider the requirements for a valid conviction under Section 420 IPC. Specifically, questions regarding Chiraniya’s intent were not appropriately addressed during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Premature Complaint Under NI Act: Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey, the court found that the timeline for filing the complaint under the NI Act was not adhered to, rendering the original complaint premature.

Conclusion: The High Court’s ruling is significant in clarifying the evidentiary and procedural standards required for convictions under Sections 420 IPC and 138 NI Act. By overturning the previous judgments, the court has reinforced the necessity of proving dishonest intent and following due process in legal proceedings. Kudus Ansari has been given the opportunity to refile the complaint under the NI Act within two months, ensuring adherence to the proper legal framework.

Date of Decision: 17th May 2024

 Shatrughan Chiraniya vs. The State of Jharkhand and Kudus Ansari

 

Similar News