Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

Supreme Court Steps In to Rectify "Lapse in Providing Proper Legal Guidance" in Dishonoured Cheques Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to rectify what it termed as a "lapse in providing proper legal guidance" to the appellant. The ruling came in the case of Bijoy Shankar Mishra vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., and it involved a jurisdictional dispute regarding dishonoured cheques amounting to Rs. 45,20,000.

Bijoy Shankar Mishra had initially filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who ruled they lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Mishra's subsequent appeal to the High Court also resulted in a dismissal.

"We are of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Section 406 of the Code," said the bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti. "The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, has passed the order without realizing the legal consequences. There was a lapse and proper legal guidance, which was not provided to the appellant – Bijoy Shankar Mishra."

The Supreme Court emphasized that "procedural defect/lapse had a remedy, and was not substantial as to constitute lack of subject-matter jurisdiction." It further noted that "technical defects and irregularities should not come in the way of substantial justice," citing a recent judgment for this reasoning.

The Court clarified that its ruling was based on the "unique facts and circumstances" of the case and "should not be treated as a precedent."

The Supreme Court's decision has set aside both the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, and the impugned order of the High Court, directing that the trial will continue in Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.

The case highlights the Supreme Court's commitment to ensuring that procedural shortcomings do not obstruct the course of justice, reinforcing the principle that the law exists to serve substantial justice above all.

Date of Decision: September 12, 2023

BIJOY SHANKAR MISHRA vs HE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

Latest Legal News