Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Raju Vayalat @ Raju J Vayalattu @ Raju J Vayalat – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 2850 of 2022, Cr.M.P. No. 2862 of 2022
Decided on : 02-02-2023
Negotiable Instrument Act - Dishonoured Cheques - Sections 138, 420 of IPC - [138, 420] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It highlighted the presumption under Section 118 of the NI Act and the rebuttable statutory presumptions under Section 139. The court emphasized the difference in procedure for taking cognizance under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Criminal Procedure Code, and the essential ingredient for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the dishonour of cheques related to a lease agreement for a film studio and allied business. The complainant filed separate cases for the dishonour of different cheques arising from the same transaction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no infirmity in the order taking cognizance under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. However, it set aside the order of cognizance under Section 420 of the IPC, as there was no material to show an intention of deception from the inception.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction for enquiry of trial, the presumption under Section 118 of the NI Act, and the procedure for taking cognizance under the NI Act and the Cr. P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the difference in procedure for taking cognizance under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Criminal Procedure Code, and the essential ingredient for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the criminal miscellaneous petitions, setting aside the order of cognizance under Section 420 of the IPC and quashing the order of cognizance under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against one of the accused persons.
JUDGMENT :
1. Since both the Cr. Misc. Petitions, arise out of same fact situation for which, as per the complainant, different cheques were issued and the complainant filed different cases for their dishonour, therefore, they have been heard together and will be disposed by common order.
2. Cr. M. P. No. 2850 of 2022 has been filed for quashing the order of issuance of process dated 17.03.2020 passed in Complaint Case no. 1051 of 2019 whereby and whereunder, the learned court below found prima facie case to be made out under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and Section 420 of IPC.
3. Cr. M. P. No. 2862 of 2022 has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.03.2020 arising out of Complaint Case no. 1052 of 2019 whereby and whereunder, the learned court below found prima facie case to be made out under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and Section 420 of IPC.
4. Although separate complaint cases have been filed, but the offence alleged arise out of the same transaction and therefore have been heard together and will be disposed by the common order.
5. As per the case of the complainant in Complaint Case no.1051, a lease agreement being Lease Deed No.77912 was entered on 1.3.2012 at SRO Maraikulum, between the petitioner Raju J Vayalat (A1) and the Complainant (OP2) with respect to land and building in Kerala for running a film studio and allied and incidental business connected with mass media, TV etc.
6. Later, on the request of the accused persons the complainant agreed to terminate the registered lease deed on the condition that accused persons would pay Rs. 35 lakhs to the complainant to partially compensate for the amount spent by the complainant towards the innovation, constructions and maintenance of the buildings in the land leased out by the lease deed dated 1.3.2012. It was also agreed by the accused persons to return the security deposit of Rs.10 lakhs immediately after termination of the lease. An agreement was executed on 11.6.2015 to that effect and a cheque for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-was given to the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque for payment on 25.02.2019 which got dishonoured and consequently, on 19.06.2019 notice was served by registered post which was duly received on 26.06.2019. When the said amount was not paid, the complaint petition was filed on 09.08.2019. For this Complaint Case no. 1051 of 2019 has been filed.
7. Complaint Case no. 1052 of 2019 also arise out of the same lease deed no.779/12 dated 1.3.2012 between the same parties with regard to the same subject matter. Further narration of the facts leading to termination of the lease agreement is all identical in both the cases.
8. The agreement for the surrender of the lease was entered on 11.6.2015 between Raju J Vayalat on behalf of himself and as power of attorney holder for his mother Annakutty Joseph and by Avinash V Unnithan. As per the term of agreement, duties and responsibilities of the parties, mentioning the amount to be paid to the complainant, and also the cheque numbers being handed over to the complainant to facilitate the payments were set out in the agreement.
9. The complainant handed over the keys and surrendered the vacant possession of the entire property of 121.42 acres and the buildings situated therein to the accused and also the registered lease deed dated 01.03.2012 at SRO Maraikulum. The accused handed over the cheques mentioned in the agreement to the complainant after the termination of the lease deed.
10. Total four cheques for a sum of Rs.40 lakhs were handed over to the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque for payment with his bankers namely the Federal Bank Ltd, Bokaro steel city Branch. All these cheques were dishonoured. After completing the procedural formalities of service of legal notice, the present case has been filed.
11. The order taking cognizance has been assailed on the ground that the cause of action did not arise within the State of Jharkhand rather it took pla
The essential ingredient for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and the difference in procedure for taking cognizance under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.
Distinct offences under the IPC and NIA can coexist, and concurrent prosecutions do not violate the double jeopardy principle under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
Magistrate must mandatorily conduct inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing summons if accused resides outside its jurisdiction, even in cheque dishonour cases; non-compliance vitiates proce....
A person who is not a signatory to the cheque cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for the offence of dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds.
The liability of the company and its officers under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was established based on the specific averments in the complaint and the company's reply, and the cou....
(1) Dishonour of cheque – At stage of issuance of process, statutory presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act cannot be dislodged in a summary manner merely by contending that cheque issued was not ....
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, cannot be rebutted at the pre-trial stage; such an exercise must be conducted during the trial, provided the compl....
Independent causes of action for dishonoured cheques can lead to multiple complaints under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the necessity of an inquiry under Sec. 202 is contingent upo....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
