rashmi

 Powered by Translate

संक्षिप्त भूमिका न्यायालय की प्रतिलिपि तर्क (0/6) संदर्भित कानून (0/6) केस लॉ (0/1) न्यायिक विश्लेषण

नमस्ते आप एक निःशुल्क परीक्षण का उपयोग कर रहे हैं - 22 मई 25 को समाप्त हो रहा है, अपनी योजना को अपग्रेड करने के लिए सदस्यता लेने के लिए यहां क्लिक करें !

2022 0 सुप्रीम(कर) 780 2022 4 बीसी 605 ; 2022 3 सीआरआईसीसी 251 कर्नाटक उच्च न्यायालय में महेशन नागप्रसन्ना, जे. रश्मि टंडन एवं अन्य - अपीलकर्ता बनाम कर्नाटक राज्य एवं अन्य - प्रतिवादी आपराधिक याचिका संख्या 6638/2021 दिनांक 10-05-2022 को निर्णयित

संदर्भित अधिनियम : दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता : धारा 156(3), धारा 156(3), धारा 200, धारा 300(1), धारा 482 भारतीय दंड संहिता : धारा 114, धारा 406, धारा 420 परक्राम्य लिखत अधिनियम : धारा 138

परक्राम्य लिखत अधिनियम, 1881 की धारा 138 - धारा 420 आईपीसी के तहत शिकायत की स्थिरता - धारा 138, 406, 420 आईपीसी - अदालत ने परक्राम्य लिखत अधिनियम, 1881 की धारा 138 को लागू करने वाली कार्यवाही शुरू करने के बाद धारा 420 आईपीसी के तहत शिकायत की स्थिरता पर चर्चा की। अदालत ने संगीताबेन महेंद्रभाई पटेल बनाम गुजरात राज्य और अन्य (2012) 7 एससीसी 621 में फैसले का हवाला दिया और कहा कि दोनों अलग-अलग क्षेत्रों में अलग-अलग सामग्री और दंड के साथ काम करते हैं। अदालत ने प्रियंका श्रीवास्तव बनाम यूपी राज्य, (2015) 6 एससीसी 287 में रिपोर्ट किए गए फैसले के अनुपालन को भी संबोधित किया, जिसमें क्षेत्राधिकार वाली पुलिस के समक्ष शिकायत दर्ज करने के प्रयासों की आवश्यकता और सीआरपीसी की धारा 156 (3) के तहत जांच की मांग करते समय हलफनामे की आवश्यकता पर बल दिया

मामले का तथ्य:

याचिकाकर्ता, जो एक कंपनी के निदेशक थे, ने शिकायतकर्ता से वित्तीय सहायता मांगी। कंपनी ने शिकायतकर्ता को चेक जारी किए, जिन्हें बाद में 'खाता बंद' के साथ वापस कर दिया गया। शिकायतकर्ता ने परक्राम्य लिखत अधिनियम, 1881 की धारा 138 के तहत कार्यवाही शुरू की और बाद में कंपनी और उसके निदेशकों के खिलाफ आईपीसी की धारा 420 के तहत धोखाधड़ी का आरोप लगाते हुए सीआरपीसी की धारा 200 का हवाला देते हुए एक निजी शिकायत दर्ज की। याचिकाकर्ताओं ने अधिनियम की धारा 138 के तहत कार्यवाही शुरू होने के बाद आईपीसी की धारा 420 के तहत शिकायत की स्थिरता को चुनौती दी।

न्यायालय का निष्कर्ष:

The court found that the complaint under Section 420 IPC was maintainable after the initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. It held that the two operate in different fields with different ingredients and penalties. The court also found that the complaint was in compliance with the judgment in Priyanka Srivastava, as the complainant had made efforts to register a complaint before the jurisdictional police and had accompanied the complaint with an affidavit when seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C.

Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of a complaint under Section 420 IPC after the initiation of proceedings invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court also addressed the compliance with the judgment in Priyanka Srivastava regarding the registration of a private complaint and the requirement of an affidavit when seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint under Section 420 IPC was maintainable after the initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, as the two operate in different fields with different ingredients and penalties. The court also emphasized the need for efforts to register a complaint before the jurisdictional police and the requirement of an affidavit when seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C., in compliance with the judgment in Priyanka Srivastava.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, as the court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions regarding the maintainability of the complaint under Section 420 IPC and its compliance with the judgment in Priyanka Srivastava.

Cases Referred: Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P., , (2015) 6 SCC 287 - Referred Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., , (2012) 7 SCC 621 - Referred Advocates appeared: S.G. Bhagavan , Advocate, for the Petitioner; B.J. Rohith, HCGP and Devi Prasad Shetty , Advocate, for the Respondents JUDGMENT

Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No. 88 of 2021 registered on 22-07-2021 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.

  1. Heard Sri S.G. Bhagavan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.J. Rohith, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 and Sri Deviprasad Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

  2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The petitioners were the Directors of the Company by name Headwin Exim Private Limited ('the Company' for short). The Company was engaged in the business of import. It appears that the Directors of the Company approached the 2nd respondent/complainant seeking financial assistance to meet immediate financial needs that arose in its business. A transaction between the two take place and the complainant claims to have assisted the Company with finance of Rs. 30,00,000/- initially and Rs. 5,00,000/- later. The financial assistance was rendered between July 2015 and September, 2015 against which, the Company had issued five cheques totally to the aforesaid amount. The cheques when presented for realization were returned with the endorsement "account closed". The legal requirements necessary for initiation of proceedings invoking the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short) was taken up by the complainant and later initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in C.C. No. 426 of 2020. The same is pending consideration before the competent Court. The case at hand does not concern with C.C. No. 426 of 2020 filed under the Act. It is what the complainant does after invoking the provisions of the Act is what concerns the present petition.

  1. On the same instrument of issuance of cheques for which proceedings had initiated under Section 138 of the Act, the complainant registered a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. alleging cheating under Section 420 of the IPC on the part of the Company and its Directors. The learned Magistrate, on registration of the said private complaint, directs investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. The Police pursuant to the aforesaid direction under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C., registers a FIR in Crime No. 88 of 2021. It is at that juncture, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition. The petitioners are accused 4 and 5 in the FIR.

  2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the complainant having invoked the jurisdiction of the competent criminal Court by filing a complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act could not have again registered a complaint for the offence of cheating. It would amount to filing two complaints for the same offence. He would further submit that the private complaint so registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC runs counter to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 as there is no indication of following the mandate enunciated in Priyanka Srivastava and he would seek that the petition be allowed and proceedings be quashed.

  3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 would vehemently refute the submissions and contends that invoking Section 138 of the Act will not preclude the complainant from registering a crime for offence punishable either under Section 406 or 420 of the IPC as it does amount to cheating and inducement on the part of the accused. It is a matter of trial in which the petitioners have to come out clean and seeks dismissal of the petition.

  4. The learned High Court Government Pleader in his submissions toe lines of the learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

  5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

  6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue that falls for my consideration is, Whether the complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. for offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC would become maintainable after initiation of proceedings invoking Section 138 of the Act?

  7. Issuance of cheques, they getting dishonoured and all other factual narration are not required to be reiterated. The issue with regard to registration of criminal case for offence punishable under the IPC notwithstanding registration of case under the Act need not detain this Court for long as the Apex Court in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2012) 7 SCC 621 has held as follows:

"37. Admittedly, the appellant had been tried earlier for the offences punishable under the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act and the case is sub judice before the High Court. In the instant case, he is involved under Sections 406/420 read with Section 114 IPC. In the prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, the mens rea i.e. fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of issuance of cheque is not required to be proved. However, in the case under IPC involved herein, the issue of mens rea may be relevant. The offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is a serious one as the sentence of 7 years can be imposed.

  1. In the case under the NI Act, there is a legal presumption that the cheque had been issued for discharging the antecedent liability and that presumption can be rebutted only by the person who draws the cheque. Such a requirement is not there in the offences under IPC. In the case under the NI Act, if a fine is imposed, it is to be adjusted to meet the legally enforceable liability. There cannot be such a requirement in the offences under IPC. The case under the NI Act can only be initiated by filing a complaint. However, in a case under IPC such a condition is not necessary.

  2. There may be some overlapping of facts in both the cases but the ingredients of the offences are entirely different. Thus, the subsequent case is not barred by any of the aforesaid statutory provisions." (Emphasis supplied)

सर्वोच्च न्यायालय इस मुद्दे पर विचार कर रहा है कि क्या आईपीसी की धारा 420 के तहत याचिका लंबित रहने के दौरान या अधिनियम की धारा 138 के तहत दोषसिद्धि के बाद भी सुनवाई योग्य होगी। सर्वोच्च न्यायालय का मानना ​​है कि दोनों अलग-अलग क्षेत्रों में काम करते हैं।

  1. अधिनियम के तहत किसी मामले में यह ध्यान देने की आवश्यकता है कि क्या यह कानूनी रूप से लागू करने योग्य ऋण के लिए है और जुर्माना लगाया गया है। धारा 406 या 420 आईपीसी के तहत एक ही उपकरण पर शामिल अपराध में सात साल की सजा दी जा सकती है और आईपीसी की धारा 420 के तहत धोखाधड़ी के अपराध के मामले में अन्य बातों के साथ-साथ मेन्स रीआ तत्व को भी देखा जाना आवश्यक है। सर्वोच्च न्यायालय का मानना ​​है कि इसमें भारत के संविधान के अनुच्छेद 20(2) या सीआरपीसी की धारा 300(1) का उल्लंघन होने का कोई सवाल ही नहीं उठता क्योंकि यह दोहरा खतरा नहीं है। इसलिए, याचिकाकर्ताओं की ओर से पेश विद्वान वकील का यह कहना कि आईपीसी की धारा 420 के तहत दंडनीय अपराध के लिए कार्यवाही तब तक स्वीकार्य नहीं है जब तक कि शिकायतकर्ता अधिनियम की धारा 138 का हवाला नहीं देता, अस्वीकार्य है। याचिकाकर्ताओं के लिए बेदाग निकलना परीक्षण का विषय है।

  2. दूसरा मुद्दा यह है कि दर्ज की गई शिकायत प्रियंका श्रीवास्तव (सुप्रा) के मामले में दिए गए फैसले के विपरीत है। सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने उपरोक्त फैसले में माना है कि निजी शिकायत दर्ज करने से पहले शिकायत में यह प्रदर्शित किया जाना चाहिए कि शिकायतकर्ता ने क्षेत्राधिकार वाली पुलिस के समक्ष शिकायत दर्ज करने के लिए प्रयास किए हैं और शिकायत पर विचार न किए जाने के बाद मामले में आगे बढ़ने का एकमात्र तरीका सीआरपीसी की धारा 200 के तहत शिकायत दर्ज करना है। फैसले का दूसरा आदेश यह है कि अगर निजी शिकायत में सीआरपीसी की धारा 156(3) के तहत जांच की मांग की जाती है, तो इसके साथ शिकायतकर्ता का हलफनामा भी होना चाहिए। विवादित शिकायत का अवलोकन करने से यह स्पष्ट रूप से संकेत मिलता है कि शिकायत प्रियंका श्रीवास्तव के मामले में दिए गए फैसले के आदेश के अनुरूप है क्योंकि शिकायतकर्ता ने पुलिस के समक्ष अपराध दर्ज करने के लिए किए गए प्रयासों का वर्णन किया है और हलफनामा शिकायत के साथ संलग्न है।

  3. इसलिए, दर्ज की गई शिकायत प्रियंका श्रीवास्तव के मामले में सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के फैसले का उल्लंघन नहीं है। ऐसा कोई अन्य दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है जो इतना निर्विवाद हो कि इस न्यायालय को सीआरपीसी की धारा 482 के तहत हस्तक्षेप करने की आवश्यकता हो। याचिकाकर्ताओं के विद्वान वकील द्वारा प्रस्तुत किए गए तर्क इस प्रकार अस्थिर हैं।

  4. उपर्युक्त कारणों से, याचिका में कोई योग्यता न पाते हुए, याचिका खारिज की जाती है।

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Marriage In Meghalaya

 Marriage in Meghalaya , a state in the northeastern part of India, is rich in cultural diversity, as it is home to various indigenous communities like the Khasis , Jaintias , and Garos , each with its own unique marriage customs and traditions. Here's a brief look at the wedding practices of these communities: 1. Khasis (Matrilineal Society) : The Khasis are known for their matrilineal system , where lineage and inheritance pass through the mother. This system also influences their marriage rituals. Pre-marriage : The process often begins with the families' agreement, and once a match is found, the groom visits the bride's family with his family and brings gifts. Engagement : The engagement or "Rengpoh" involves the groom presenting gifts like clothes, betel nuts, and sweets to the bride’s family. Marriage : The wedding ceremony typically takes place in the bride’s home. The bride is central to the proceedings, and the groom usually moves into the bride's fa...
Read more

MARRIAGE IN WEST BENGAL

Image
            In West Bengal , marriage is celebrated with rich cultural and religious rituals that are steeped in tradition. The ceremonies are typically rooted in Bengali Hindu customs , though the celebrations may differ slightly depending on the family’s social background. Here's an overview of the key stages in a traditional Bengali marriage: 1. Pre-Wedding Rituals Aashirwad (Blessings) : Before the marriage, the families of both the bride and groom exchange blessings. This is a small, informal ceremony where elders from both families offer their blessings and gifts. Paka Katha (Formal Engagement) : This is the official engagement where both families formally agree on the marriage, and the bride and groom exchange rings. Saajna Sajja : This is a tradition where the bride’s family decorates her with new clothes, jewelry, and makeup. It's a way to signify her readiness for the wedding. Ashirbad Ceremony : The bride and groom receive blessings from their fa...
Read more

South Indian Marriage

Image
           South Indian marriages are rich in traditions, cultural practices, and rituals. The ceremonies may vary slightly between different states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, and Telangana, but they share common elements. Here are some key aspects of a South Indian marriage: 1. Pre-Wedding Rituals Nischayathartham (Engagement) : The formal engagement ceremony where the bride and groom exchange rings or vows. It's a promise of marriage, often marked by prayers and blessings from family members. Sumangali Prarthanai (Worship of Married Women) : In Tamil and some other South Indian communities, married women are invited to the bride’s home to pray for the bride’s well-being and marital happiness. Panda Kaal Muhurtham (Sacred Thread Ceremony) : In some South Indian weddings, an auspicious thread is tied on the bride's and groom’s wrists by elders, signifying their transition into married life. 2. Wedding Ceremony Kashi Yatra : A symbol...
Read more