Prem Raj vs Poonamma Menon & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

2 April 2024

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 1858 of 2024

Result

Allowed

Bench

Sanjay Karol, Aravind Kumar

Citation

[2024] 4 S.C.R. 29 : 2024 INSC 260

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Issue for consideration

Whether, a criminal proceeding can be initiated and the accused therein held guilty with natural consequences thereof to follow, in connection with a transaction, in respect of which a decree by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction, already stands passed.

Headnote

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Appellant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant – On receipt of demand, appellant issued a cheque for the said amount – It was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and ‘payments stopped by drawer’ – The complainant issued a notice of demand – No action on the part of the appellant was taken – Pursuant thereto, a criminal proceeding was initiated against appellant – Equally, though, the appellant had filed a civil suit with prayers to declare the said cheque as a security; direction for return of cheque and prohibitory injunction restraining any steps to encash the said cheque – The suit was decreed in favour of appellant – However, the Court seized of the s.138 N.I. Act complaint, convicted the appellant herein to undergo simple imprisonment for one year as well as pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs in default whereof, he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months – First Appellate upheld the conviction – The High Court, in revision, observed no perversity in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court – Propriety:

Held: The position as per K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police & Anr is that sentence and damages would be excluded from the conflict of decisions in civil and criminal jurisdictions of the Courts – Therefore, in the present case, considering that the Court in criminal jurisdiction has imposed both sentence and damages, the ratio of the above-referred decision dictates that the Court in criminal jurisdiction would be bound by the civil Court having declared the cheque, the subject matter of dispute, to be only for the purposes of security – In that view of the matter, the criminal proceedings resulting from the cheque being returned unrealised due to the closure of the account would be unsustainable in law and, therefore, are to be quashed and set aside. [Paras 11 and 12]

Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. Leave granted. 2. Appellant herein challenges judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2018 passed in Crl.R.P. No.1111 of 20111, whereby the High Court of Kerala allowed, only in part, his Revision Petition against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur,2 dated 11th January, 2011, in Criminal Appeal No.673 of 2007, which, in turn, upheld his conviction, as handed down by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate3 vide order dated 14th August, 2007 in CC No.51 of 2003, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.4 3.

View Subscription Plans →