Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Criminal and Civil Proceedings Based on the Same Cheque – Can They Proceed Simultaneously?
The criminal case can proceed even if a civil suit is dismissed or pending, provided the essential elements of Section 138 are satisfied (issuance of cheque, dishonor, notice, and failure to pay) ["ASHOK AIRAN vs SMT. YASHODABAI RATHORE - Chhattisgarh"] ["Navavathi v. Prabhudas - Gujarat"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Mathew Kunju Mathew, S/o. Kunju Mathew VS K. V. Kuriakose, S/o. Varghese - Kerala"]- ["ASHOK AIRAN vs SMT. YASHODABAI RATHORE - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Navavathi v. Prabhudas - Gujarat"]- ["Suresh Kumar vs Asha Ram - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["MATHEW KUNJU MATHEW vs K.V.KURIAKOSE - Kerala"]- ["MATHEW KUNJU MATHEW vs K.V.KURIAKOSE - Kerala"]
In the fast-paced world of business transactions, cheques remain a cornerstone of commerce in India. But what happens when a cheque bounces? Many individuals and businesses wonder: Whether 138 criminal case based on check and suit for realisation of money based on the same check can be continued at the same time? This question arises frequently, as payees seek both penal action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) and civil recovery of their dues.
This blog post dives deep into Indian jurisprudence on this issue, drawing from key judicial precedents. Note: This is general information based on legal principles and case law. It is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The concurrent continuation of a criminal case under Section 138 NI Act and a civil suit for recovery based on the same cheque is generally permissible under Indian law, provided the proceedings serve different purposes and no specific bar or stay order exists. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 5 Supreme 641Meters and Instruments Private Limited VS Kanchan Mehta - 2017 7 Supreme 558
Criminal proceedings under Section 138 are quasi-criminal, focusing on penalizing the dishonor of cheques to maintain trust in negotiable instruments, while also having a compensatory aspect. Civil suits, on the other hand, aim purely at monetary recovery. These are distinct remedies that can run parallel. Vishnu Dutt Sharma VS Daya Sapra - 2009 5 Supreme 258Uttam Ram VS Devinder Singh Hudan - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1157
Section 138 proceedings are not purely punitive. Courts have clarified they are quasi-criminal but primarily aimed at ensuring payment and restoring confidence in negotiable instruments. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 5 Supreme 641Meters and Instruments Private Limited VS Kanchan Mehta - 2017 7 Supreme 558 The objective is to secure repayment, with provisions for settlement and compounding, underscoring their remedial nature over strict punishment. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 5 Supreme 641Meters and Instruments Private Limited VS Kanchan Mehta - 2017 7 Supreme 558Sunil Todi VS State of Gujarat - 2021 8 Supreme 614
As noted in precedents, criminal proceedings under Section 138 are quasi-criminal but also have a civil, compensatory aspect. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 5 Supreme 641
Indian courts consistently hold that a Section 138 case does not bar a civil suit for recovery, and vice versa. The Supreme Court has ruled that both remedies are available and can proceed simultaneously, as they pursue different objectives—recovery in civil courts and penal sanctions in criminal forums. Vishnu Dutt Sharma VS Daya Sapra - 2009 5 Supreme 258Uttam Ram VS Devinder Singh Hudan - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1157
For instance, in one case, the petitioner faced a Section 138 complaint alongside a civil suit for Rs.70 Lakhs recovery. The court emphasized that civil disputes should not morph into criminal proceedings without clear intent to cheat, but did not prohibit parallel actions. SHUHAIB M.H vs STATE OF KERALA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58951
Another judgment reinforces: Cause of action for a suit for money based on a dishonoured cheque cannot be said to be the same for a suit based on original consideration. Both are different since the sources determining the right and obligations of the parties to such suits are not at all the same.Subanamma Ninan VS George Veeran - 2019 Supreme(Ker) 681 This highlights how cheque-based suits differ from original debt claims, allowing both to coexist.
A final civil judgment—such as one finding the cheque lacked consideration—may influence but does not necessarily bar Section 138 proceedings. Criminal courts assess based on statutory presumptions under the NI Act, treating civil findings as relevant but not conclusive. Vishnu Dutt Sharma VS Daya Sapra - 2009 5 Supreme 258Uttam Ram VS Devinder Singh Hudan - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1157
Courts exercise discretion judiciously, favoring enforcement of both remedies unless abuse of process is evident.
While parallel proceedings are the norm, exceptions apply:- Court-ordered stays or quashing: If a civil settlement resolves the debt or if res judicata applies explicitly.- Abuse of process: Proceedings deemed vexatious may be stayed. Vishnu Dutt Sharma VS Daya Sapra - 2009 5 Supreme 258Uttam Ram VS Devinder Singh Hudan - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1157- Specific findings: E.g., if a civil court rules no enforceable debt exists, criminal cases may face challenges, but not automatic dismissal.
These are exceptional and require explicit judicial intervention. Vishnu Dutt Sharma VS Daya Sapra - 2009 5 Supreme 258Uttam Ram VS Devinder Singh Hudan - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1157
The NI Act promotes swift enforcement. Courts allow both tracks unless stayed, aligning with goals of recovery and deterring dishonesty. The object of Section 138 is to secure payment, and civil and criminal remedies are distinct and can proceed simultaneously. Uttam Ram VS Devinder Singh Hudan - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1157
In practice:- No automatic stay: Pendency of one does not halt the other.- Complementary outcomes: Compensation under Section 357 CrPC can align with civil decrees.
Here's a summary of pivotal references:1. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 5 Supreme 641Meters and Instruments Private Limited VS Kanchan Mehta - 2017 7 Supreme 558: Quasi-criminal nature with compensatory focus; civil suits not barred.2. Vishnu Dutt Sharma VS Daya Sapra - 2009 5 Supreme 258Uttam Ram VS Devinder Singh Hudan - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1157: Parallel proceedings allowed; civil judgments not conclusive.3. SHUHAIB M.H vs STATE OF KERALA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58951: Civil recovery alongside Section 138 viable, absent cheating intent.4. Subanamma Ninan VS George Veeran - 2019 Supreme(Ker) 681: Distinct causes of action for cheque suits vs. original claims.
In summary, a criminal case under Section 138 NI Act and a civil suit for recovery on the same cheque can generally continue concurrently, unless a court explicitly stays one. This dual-track approach upholds justice—penalizing defaults while ensuring dues recovery. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 5 Supreme 641Vishnu Dutt Sharma VS Daya Sapra - 2009 5 Supreme 258Uttam Ram VS Devinder Singh Hudan - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1157
Business owners and individuals facing cheque issues should weigh both remedies strategically. Always seek professional legal counsel to navigate specifics, as outcomes depend on facts and judicial discretion.
Disclaimer: This post synthesizes general legal principles. Laws evolve, and cases vary. For tailored advice, contact a lawyer.
#Section138, #ChequeBounce, #NIACT
It was a cheque case under Section 138 of the NI Act, and a civil suit for recovery of money was also filed based on the very same cheque. The civil suit was dismissed finding that the cheque was not supported by consideration. ... As mentioned earlier, the short question that falls for consideration is whether the fate of the criminal prosecution should hang on the decree and judgment passed by the Civil Court based on the very sam....
The said notice was received by the respondent on 23.02.2018 as per Annexure P-5, but the complainant has not given 15 days’ time to arrange the said amount of money as demanded by the complainant through legal notice. ... In the instant case, the complainant makes demand for the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque. ... Based on the above evidence, analysis the nature and circumstances of the case, the evidence presented by the prosecution, th....
In that case initiation of criminal action in view of non fulfilment of the requirements of S.138 of the Act would certainly be barred; but it will be open to the payee to initiate civil action filing a suit for the recovery of the cheque amount subject to the law of limitation. ... The crucial points raised for my consideration are, where the cheque is required to be presented, whether at the collecting bank or at the paying bank and whether presentment in this case ....
The provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal liability for the dishonour of a cheque as well as civil liability for the realisation of the cheque amount. ... It is also to be borne in mind that the instant case for recovery of the amount was based on a loan advanced in lieu of a cheque. ... Suits and applications by money-lenders barred, unless money- Notwithstanding anything i contained in any other enactment for the time being in force a su....
Since its inception, the Board has undertaken the surveys of important areas of agricultural produce in the State and based on such surveys and also in consideration of appeals made by the local agriculturists and traders, have submitted phasewise proposal to the Govt from time to time. ... As no sale takes place at Srirampur Check Gate for the purposes of realisation of cess, such realisation of cess by the respondents at the check gate is absolutely illegal and arbi....
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . Petitioner also to note that, the 2nd respondent has filed a civil suit seeking recovery of Rs.70 Lakhs from the petitioner. 6.
The appellants case is that the amount of money forming Item No. 1 was set apart at the time of his mothers marriage as a trust fund for the benefit of his mother and her children. ... In the present case the question is whether Item No. 1 has come into the hands of the appellant as the property of the deceased judgment-debtor or whether it belongs to him in his own right. That being the case, it follows that according to Vengappayyan v. ... The Subordinate Judge hims....
This is the measurement which was subsequently check measured and that fact is clear from the perusal of the final bill produced in the case. ... Though the appellant have got a case that the final measurements were taken on 31-10-1986 that cannot be true because the final bill was prepared prior to that date. based on the actual measurements taken which was check measured. So it is not the amount ascertained after execution of Ext.A1. ... The appeal is filed against a decree and judgment passed by the ....
Based on the said stock check COW2 also produced a written inventory (pages 20 to 26 of COB). COW2 admitted that he did not find anything unusual while doing the first stock check. ... Claimants Case Vide her witness statement (CLWS1), the claimant denied that she took the money from the daily collection of the book shop. ... However, in this case the court notes the company did not tender any document pertaining to the stock check conducted on 10 October 2007. ....
Claimant's Case Vide her witness statement (CLWS1), the claimant denied that she took the money from the daily collection of the book shop. ... As for the RM35.00 which was found hidden in three different locations, COW2 again agreed that this finding is made based on his assumption. COW2 also agreed that the money could have been hidden by the previous employee. ... COW2 explained that it was the practice of the company at the material time not to have the employees at the book shops operated by the ....
He further submitted that the petitioner relied upon the inter communication between the second and third respondent herein dated 22.04.2013 and as such it cannot be relied upon in the present case. Subsequent to that, to make a solution on this issue, the District Registrar(Admin), Chennai Central has issued notice under Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 vide letter dated 23.03.2016 with reference to Additional Inspector General of Registration letter dated 23.03.2016 and the third respondent notice under Section 80A of the Registration Act dated 23.03.2016, show cause notice demand....
Cause of action for a suit for money based on a dishonoured cheque cannot be said to be the same for a suit based on original consideration. Both are different since the sources determining the right and obligations of the parties to such suits are not at all the same. Right of a person to sue on original consideration accrues when there is commission of breach of promise.
He would submit that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Ambalal, relied upon by the learned single judge holds the field. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue emphasized upon the policy as laid down in the Rules of 2002, in so far as the claim of rebate is concerned, by submitting that the object of the scheme is not merely procedural but a substantive one aimed at ensuring that there is due and proper certification of the goods having been duty paid on the actual export. According to him, this is also aimed at making enquiry effective and summary and at the s....
Whether the suit transaction is an unconstitutional (sic unconscionable) bargain and whether the suit can be decreed based on the same ? Whether the sale agreement is true one or not and it is executable one or not ?"
According to the 2nd respondent, he was manning coaches S6 and S7 and declared Rs.350/- as his personal cash, in the rough journal book. Whereas, it is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent had declared Rs.350/- as his personal cash, in the Rough Journal Book. However, during the time of check, he was found to have only Rs.100/- in his possession and according to the petitioners, he had inflated his private cash, in anticipation of illegal gratification to be obtained from passengers in the course of his duty in the said train. But before boarding the train at Bangalo....
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
