TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Consolidating Offenses: IPC Section 420 & NI Act Section 138 - No Double Jeopardy</h1> The Court held that maintaining a proceeding under Section 420 of the IPC after invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was permissible. ... Dishonor of Cheque - private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging cheating under Section 420 of the IPC on the part of the Company and its Directors - invocation of jurisdiction of the competent criminal Court by filing a complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act - HELD THAT:- Issuance of cheques, they getting dishonoured and all other factual narration are not required to be reiterated. The issue with regard to registration of criminal case for offence punishable under the IPC notwithstanding registration of case under the Act need not detain this Court for long as the Apex Court in the case of SANGEETABEN MAHENDRABHAI VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. [2012 (4) TMI 728 - SUPREME COURT] where the Apex Court considers the very issue of whether a petition under Section 420 of the IPC would be maintainable, during the pendency or even after conviction under Section 138 of the Act. The Apex Court holds that the two operate in different fields - In a case under the Act what is required to be noticed is, whether it is for a legally enforceable debt and a fine is imposed. In an offence involved on the same instrument under Sections 406 or 420 IPC sentence of seven years can be imposed and the element mens rea is what is required to be seen in a case for offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC inter alia. The Apex Court holds that there can no question of it being violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India or Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C. as it does not amount to double jeopardy. The complaint registered is also not in violation of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA [2015 (5) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT]. There is no other document produced that is so unimpeachable that would warrant interference at the hands of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are thus untenable. Petition dismissed. Issues:Whether a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC is maintainable after initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.Analysis:The petitioners challenged the proceedings in Crime No.88 of 2021 for an offence under Section 420 of the IPC. The complainant, who was the 2nd respondent, provided financial assistance to the Company, of which the petitioners were Directors, which later led to the issuance of cheques that were dishonored. The complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, and later filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for cheating under Section 420 of the IPC. The petitioners argued that filing two complaints for the same offence was impermissible. However, the respondent contended that invoking Section 138 of the Act did not preclude registering a complaint under IPC for cheating. The Court considered the submissions and examined the legal provisions and precedents.The Court analyzed the issue in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in SANGEETABEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR, emphasizing that the offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act and IPC operate in different fields. While the Act focuses on a legally enforceable debt, IPC offenses like cheating under Section 420 entail proving mens rea and can lead to a sentence of seven years. The Court held that maintaining a proceeding under Section 420 of the IPC after invoking Section 138 of the Act was permissible and did not violate principles of double jeopardy.Another issue raised was the compliance with the judgment in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U.P. The Court noted that the complaint in question adhered to the requirements set out in the judgment, such as demonstrating efforts to register a complaint with the police and submitting an affidavit with the complaint. The Court found the arguments of the petitioners untenable and dismissed the petition, concluding that the registered complaint did not warrant interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The judgment highlighted that the two complaints served different legal purposes and were not duplicative, thus allowing the proceedings under Section 420 of the IPC to continue alongside the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
