Sanction to Prosecute Public Servants: Change in Regime — A Balancing Act
by Mrinal Shankar† and Dharma Tej Koneru††
NI Act
‘Order u/S 482 CrPC can be passed to prevent abuse of process’: Delhi HC imposes Rs. 50,000 cost on complainant pursuing case even after acceptance of settlement money
“The conduct of the litigants to keep the dispute alive for mala fide reasons has the tendency of keeping the docket of the Courts heavy to the detriment of other litigants whose cases have been pending for years together.”
‘Dishonour of invalid cheque cannot attract liability u/s 138 of NI Act’; Allahabad HC holds Allahabad Bank cheques to be invalid post 30-09-2021
“From the perusal of Section 138 N.I. Act, it is clear that if any invalid cheque is presented before the Bank and the same was dishonoured, then no liability under Section 138 of NI Act would be attracted, and the cheque of Allahabad Bank is invalid after 30-09-2021 after merging the Allahabad Bank into the Indian Bank on 01-04-2020.”
S. 143-A NI Act| Factors laid down by SC for exercising discretion in payment of interim compensation in cheque dishonour cases
“If the word ‘may’ is read as ‘shall’, it will have drastic consequences, as in every complaint under Section 138, the accused will have to pay interim compensation up to 20 per cent of the cheque amount and such an interpretation will be unjust and contrary to the well-settled concept of fairness and justice, exposing the provision to the vice of manifest arbitrariness.”
Delhi Court acquits accused under Section 138 NI Act on failure to establish debt adjustment
The complainant woefully failed to account for the amount of Rs 6,11,071/- which was due on him towards the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amount represented on the cheque in question was a legally recoverable debt.
Calcutta High Court upholds acquittal under Section 138 of NI Act on failure to prove existence of legally enforceable debt
Calcutta High Court delved into the legalities surrounding the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, emphasizing that it is a “rebuttable presumption”.
Even a voluntarily signed blank cheque leaf would attract presumption under section 139 of NI Act: Kerala High Court
Kerala High Court stated that the petitioner failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove that the cheque in question was not aimed at discharging any legally enforceable debt.
Allahabad HC directs Magistrate to conclude NI Act proceedings expeditiously without going into unnecessary technicality
Allahabad High Court noted that the Supreme Court has issued several directions to deal with the pendency of dishonor of cheque cases and for their expeditious disposal
Whether debt was barred by limitation or not in cheque bounce cases, is a question of evidence: SC
“The question of debt barred by limitation is to be decided on basis of evidence as, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact”.
Husband cannot be summoned in cheque bounce case for cheque issued by wife as sole proprietor of a firm: Allahabad High Court
Allahabad High Court said that in the eye of law, wife and husband have separate entity. The present case is not a case that the wife, sole proprietor of the Firm had provided the cheque signed by or on behalf of the applicant
Initiation of IBC proceedings does not absolve Company Directors/Signatories of criminal liability under Section 138 NI Act: SC
The Supreme Court observed that the scope of nature of proceedings under the two Acts are quite different and would not intercede each other.
Section 138 NI Act| Supreme Court sets aside Madras High Court’s reversal of acquittal in a cheque bouncing case
The Supreme Court observed that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited and that the Madras High Court ‘could not have interfered with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court.
Compilation of Important Judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts regarding Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† Anwesha Pal†† and Yashwardhan Singh†††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 11
Dishonour of Cheque – S. 141 NI Act| Complainant only supposed to have general knowledge of person(s) in charge of company/firm; Burden on Director/Partner to prove their innocence: SC
“Quashing of a complaint is a serious matter. Complaint cannot be quashed for the asking. For quashing of a complaint, it must be shown that no offence is made out at all against the Director or Partner.”
Can accused be tried under NI Act as well as under IPC on similar set of allegations or will it amount to double jeopardy? Larger SC bench to decide
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Nazeer and JK Maheshwari*, JJ has called upon a larger bench to decide if on similar
Right to cross-examination cannot be denied as a punishment for failure to deposit interim compensation under Section 143A NI Act: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: In a case where an offender under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) was denied the
Whether concurrent prosecutions under S. 138, NI Act and S. 420, IPC, will amount to double jeopardy? J&K and Ladakh HC analyses
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petitions, the question that came up before that Court
Allahabad High Court | Sections 4 & 5 CrPC only applicable to proceedings under Special Acts; not when criminal jurisdiction is invoked
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Gautam Chowdhary, JJ. dismissed a petition which was filed praying