IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
Manoj Bithalkar - Applicant
Versus
P.K. Rai, S/o Late Shri D.P. Rai - Non-applicant
Criminal Revision No.688 of 2011, Criminal Revision No.86 of 2013
Decided On : 11-07-2024
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 357(3) - Single complaint maintainable for dishonour of multiple cheques issued on the same cause of action - The Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. has held that multiple complaints for dishonoured cheques from a single transaction cause harassment to the drawer - The trial Court's conviction under Section 138 NI Act and compensation order upheld, but the sentence modified to a fine of Rs.8,44,000/- instead of imprisonment. (Paras 7, 10, 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The applicant issued eight cheques for a land purchase, all dishonoured, leading to a single complaint. The trial Court convicted the applicant under Section 138 NI Act.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court's conviction was justified, but the sentence was modified to a fine.
Issues: Whether a single complaint is maintainable for multiple dishonoured cheques.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that a single complaint is maintainable for multiple cheques from the same transaction, emphasizing the need for uniformity in handling such cases.
Result: Criminal Revision No.86/2013 allowed in part; Criminal Revision No.688/2011 dismissed.
ORDER :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Since common question of fact & law is involved in both the revisions and both arise from one & same criminal trial i.e. Criminal Complaint Case No.1512/2010, they have been clubbed together and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The applicant herein purchased a part of land from the non-applicant herein situate at Village Khamtarai amounting to Rs.13,60,000/- for which agreement was executed between them on 27-5-2005 and some payment was also made and for the outstanding payment of Rs.5,44,000/-, eight different cheques on eight different dates were issued in favour of the non-applicant from 5-1-2006 to 30-1-2006. On 4-7-2006, the non-applicant deposited all the cheques in his bank which were got dishonoured on 5-7-2006 holding that ‘account closed’ and accordingly, legal notice was sent by the non-applicant to the applicant on 10-8-2006 which got returned on 14-8-2006. Accordingly, one common complaint was filed on 13-9-2006 by the non-applicant herein / complainant whereupon trial was conducted and the trial Court by judgment dated 31-10-2011 convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also directed the applicant to pay compensation of Rs.5,44,000/- to the non-applicant herein / complainant under Section 357(3) of the CrPC against which unsuccessful appeal was preferred by the applicant leading to filing of Criminal Revision No.86/2013, whereas, Criminal Revision No.688/2011 has been preferred to quash the judgment passed in appeal to the extent it relates to the direction to deposit 20% of Rs.5,44,000/-, which was directed by the appellate Court to be deposited as interim compensation and which was not deposited by the applicant herein. Thus, Cr.Rev.No.688/2011 was filed for quashment of judgment dated 21-11-2011 passed by the appellate Court to the extent of depositing 20% of Rs.5,44,000/- as interim compensation and Cr.Rev.No.86/2013 was filed for quashment of judgment dated 30-1-2013 passed by the trial Court. This is how both the revisions have been placed for consideration.
3. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant herein / accused, would make a solitary submission that single complaint is not maintainable for dishonour of multiple cheques issued by the applicant on the same cause of action. He would further submit that eight different cheques issued by the applicant were dishonoured, therefore, eight complaints could have been filed and as such, single complaint was not maintainable which was not adverted to by the trial Court and therefore the judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside on that very count only.
4. Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant herein / complainant, would submit that both the courts below were absolutely justified in granting the complaint and the legal issue raised is squarely covered by a recent decision of the Karnataka High Court in the matter of A. Adinarayana Reddy v. S. Vijayalakshmi and another Criminal Petition No.5909 of 2023, decided on 5-2-2024, as such, both the criminal revisions deserve to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as of the appellate Court and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.
6. The question is, whether single complaint is maintainable for dishonour of multiple cheques issued by the applicant on the same cause of action / transaction in question?
7. However, the issue is no longer res integra. It stands decided authoritatively by the Supreme Court in the matter of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 in which their Lordships have clearly held that if cheques issued in one transaction subsequently found dishonoured and multiple complaints are allowed to be filed, it would cause tremendous
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663
Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197
A single complaint is maintainable for multiple dishonoured cheques issued on the same cause of action, as established by the Supreme Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unless there are special circumstances, fine up to twice the chequ....
Compensation under Section 357(3) of CrPC must be reasonable and not exceed the actual loss suffered, aligning with the cheque amount in dishonor cases.
(1) Reasons – Reasons are obvious inasmuch as if a cheque gets dishonored, the payee will suffer hardship in meeting his financial commitments. (2) Object and Reasons – The prime object of enacting t....
(1) Reasons – Reasons are obvious inasmuch as if a cheque gets dishonored, the payee will suffer hardship in meeting his financial commitments. (2) Object and Reasons – The prime object of enacting t....
The court emphasized the need for uniformity in compensation for cheque dishonour cases, affirming that compensation should reflect the cheque amount and interest, as established in prior Supreme Cou....
The compensatory aspect is paramount in Section 138 cases, and trial courts must ensure adequate compensation to complainants while exercising discretion in sentencing.
The compensatory nature of the offense under Section 138 of the NI Act and the legislative intent to deter dishonour of cheques influenced the court's decision in setting aside the additional fine im....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.