Brief Facts
- Appellant herein challenged the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2018 passed in Crl. R.P. No. 1111 of 2011, whereby the High Court of Kerala allowed, only in part, his Revision Petition against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur, dated 11th January, 2011, in Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 2007, which, in turn, upheld his conviction, as handed down by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate vide order dated 14th August, 2007 in CC No. 51 of 2003, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Issues
- Whether a criminal proceeding can be initiated and the accused therein held guilty with natural consequences thereof to follow, in connection with a transaction, in respect of which a decree by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction, already stands passed?
Held
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed all criminal proceedings. The findings of the Court are as under:
- It appears from the record that the very same cheque was in issue before the Civil Court, and also the Court seized of the Section 138 N.I. Act Complaint.
- We find the manner in which this matter has travelled up to this Court to be quite concerning. We fail to understand as to how a civil as well as criminal course could be adopted by the parties involved, in respect of the very same issue and transaction, in these peculiar facts and circumstances.
- The position as per K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police & Anr, (2002) 8 SCC 87 is that sentence and damages would be excluded from the conflict of decisions in civil and criminal jurisdictions of the Courts. Therefore, in the present case, considering that the Court in criminal jurisdiction has imposed both sentence and damages, the ratio of the above-referred decision dictates that the Court in criminal jurisdiction would be bound by the civil Court having declared the cheque, the subject matter of dispute, to be only for the purposes of security.
- In that view of the matter, the criminal proceedings resulting from the cheque being returned unrealised due to the closure of the account would be unsustainable in law and, therefore, are to be quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the damages as imposed by the Courts below must be returned to the appellant herein forthwith.
- The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Hence, the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur, in Criminal Appeal 673 of 2007, which upheld the conviction, as handed down by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate in CC No. 51 of 2003, which came to affirmed by the High Court of Kerela in Crl.R.P.No.1111 of 2011 is quashed and set aside.
Relevant Para No.
- 8, 11, 12 and 13