TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 976
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:- The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The petitioners were the Directors of the Company by name Headwin Exim Private Limited ('the Company' for short). The Company was engaged in the business of import. It appears that the Directors of the Company approached the 2nd respondent/complainant seeking financial assistance to meet immediate financial needs that arose in its business. A transaction between the two take place and the complainant claims to have assisted the Company with finance of Rs.30,00,000/- initially and Rs.5,00,000/- later. The financial assistance was rendered between J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....invoked the jurisdiction of the competent criminal Court by filing a complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act could not have again registered a complaint for the offence of cheating. It would amount to filing two complaints for the same offence. He would further submit that the private complaint so registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC runs counter to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA V. STATE OF U.P., reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 as there is no indication of following the mandate enunciated in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA and he would seek that the petition be allowed and proceedings be quashed. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e NI Act and the case is sub judice before the High Court. In the instant case, he is involved under Sections 406/420 read with Section 114 IPC. In the prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, the mens rea i.e. fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of issuance of cheque is not required to be proved. However, in the case under IPC involved herein, the issue of mens rea may be relevant. The offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is a serious one as the sentence of 7 years can be imposed. 38. In the case under the NI Act, there is a legal presumption that the cheque had been issued for discharging the antecedent liability and that presumption can be rebutted only by the person who draws the cheque. Such a requirement is not the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC is not maintainable once the complainant invokes Section 138 of the Act is unacceptable. It is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean. 12. The other issue urged is that the complaint registered is contrary to the judgment in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA (supra). The Apex Court has in the aforesaid judgment held that prior to registration of a private complaint it should be demonstrated in the complaint that the complainant has made efforts to register a complaint before the jurisdictional police and that having not entertained the only way to proceed in the matter is by registration of a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The other mandate of the judgment is that if ....