TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, as handed down by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate 'Trial Court' vide order dated 14th August, 2007 in CC No.51 of 2003, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 'N.I. Act' 3. The sole issue that we are required to consider is, 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. 4. The facts necessary to put into perspective the issue in the present appeal are:- 4.1 The Appellant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the Complainant, K.P.B Menon "Sreyes," with the promise that he would repay it on demand. 4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk, was dismissed and the Suit was wholly decreed against the remaining defendants. 5.2 Defendant No.1 filed an appeal before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakuda in C.M.A.No.6/2006. In its judgment dated 30th January, 2007, the Court observed that "The lower court correctly analysed the facts and arrived at the right conclusion. I find no reason to interfere the order of the lower court. Hence I dismissed this appeal." 6. Therefore, it appears from the record that the very same cheque was in issue before the Civil Court and also the Court seized of the Section 138 N.I. Act complaint. The conclusions drawn by the Courts below, subject matter of the instant lis, are as under: 6.1 The Trial Court convicted the appellant herein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned counsel appearing for the appellant, placed reliance on certain authorities of this Court. In M/s. Karam Chand Ganga Prasad & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1970) 3 SCC 694, this Court observed that: ".......It is a well-established principle of law that the decisions of the civil courts are binding on the criminal courts. The converse is not true." In K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police & Anr (2002) 8 SCC 87., a Bench of three learned Judges observed that, following the M.S. Sheriff vs. State of Madras AIR 1954 SC 397, no straight-jacket formula could be laid down and conflicting decisions of civil and criminal Courts would not be a relevant consideration except for the limited purpose of sentence or damages. 10. We notice t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing a similar contention in an appeal against an order directing filing of a complaint under Section 476 of the old Code, the following observations made by a Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras [1954 SCR 1144: AIR 1954 SC 397: 1954 Cri LJ 1019] give a complete answer to the problem posed: (AIR p. 399, paras 15-16) "15. As between the civil and the criminal proceedings, we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an event....