2018 (10) TMI 1567 - HC - Indian Laws

Second Revisional Challenge Not Permissible for Criminal Complaints Under Section 138

The court dismissed the petitions challenging criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 through a petition under ... Dishonor of cheque - section 138 of NI Act - Whether the petitioner having availed of the remedy of revision should be allowed to have recourse to the petition at hand as a substitute for virtually a second revisional challenge or scrutiny which is clearly barred under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C.? Held that:- The liability to return the interest free security deposit had not arisen by the time the cause of action for filing the criminal complaints had come up. Since the handing of the vacant and physical possession of the premises was a subsequent event that occurred on 30.03.2013, it was only on that date and thereafter that the complainant became obliged to account for the interest free security deposit. In fact prior to the said date, he had no lawful reason or authority to draw from the security deposit so as to claim the money which was stated to be due against the dishonoured cheques. The interest free security deposit, even otherwise, was not meant to take care only of default in payment of rent. Various other liabilities including on account of taxes or utility charges as indeed the satisfaction about the condition in which the property was being handed over required to be factored in such context - It was the submission of the petitioners themselves that in terms of the arbitration clause forming part of the lease agreement, the parties are presently before an arbitrator vis-a-vis the refund of the security deposit. Such deposit and arbitral proceedings relate to civil rights and obligations, determination of such rights and obligations being still pending, no benefit on that account can be claimed – not atleast at this stage of the criminal process, in the context of proceedings relating to offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.It was the submission of the petitioners themselves that in terms of the arbitration clause forming part of the lease agreement, the parties are presently before an arbitrator vis-a-vis the refund of the security deposit. Such deposit and arbitral proceedings relate to civil rights and obligations, determination of such rights and obligations being still pending, no benefit on that account can be claimed – not atleast at this stage of the criminal process, in the context of proceedings relating to offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The contentions of the petitioners at best give rise to questions of facts which will have to be determined by the trial court on the basis of evidence - There is no case made out for any interdict by this court - petition dismissed. Issues involved:1. Whether the petitioners can challenge criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 through a petition under Section 482 Cr. PC as a substitute for a second revisional challenge.2. Whether there has been a miscarriage of justice in initiating criminal action against the petitioners.3. The impact of the lease agreement on the criminal complaints regarding dishonored cheques.4. The significance of the interest-free security deposit in relation to the liabilities arising from the dishonored cheques.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the issue of whether the petitioners can use a petition under Section 482 Cr. PC as a substitute for a second revisional challenge after their revision petitions were dismissed. The court considered previous decisions and ruled that such a second challenge is not permissible under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C., citing relevant case law.2. The court reconsiders the petitioners' contentions to determine if there has been a miscarriage of justice in initiating criminal action against them based on the allegations in the criminal complaints. The court examines the facts and circumstances to assess this aspect thoroughly.3. The judgment delves into the impact of the lease agreement on the criminal complaints related to dishonored cheques. It outlines the terms of the lease agreement, the payment obligations of the lessee (petitioners), and the events leading to the dishonor of the cheques. The court analyzes the timeline of events and their legal implications.4. The judgment discusses the significance of the interest-free security deposit concerning the liabilities arising from the dishonored cheques. It explains that the security deposit was not solely for rent default but also for other liabilities. The court emphasizes that the deposit and related arbitration proceedings pertain to civil rights and obligations, which are separate from the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Overall, the judgment dismisses the petitions and associated applications, concluding that the contentions raised by the petitioners require factual determination by the trial court based on evidence. The court finds no grounds for intervention at that stage in the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr. PC.