CASE TITLE:
RASHMI TANDON & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DATE OF ORDER:
10TH MAY,2022
JUDGE(S):
HON’BLE JUSTICE M NAGAPRASANNA
PARTIES:
PETITIONERS: RASHMI TANDON
RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
SUBJECT
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that proceedings under Section 420 of theIndian Penal Code are maintainable even if a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed.
BRIEF FACTS
- The petitioners approached the court, questioning the proceedings registered on 22-07-2021 for an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC on the basis of a private complaint filed by one SOMASHEKAR B. The petitioners were the Directors of Headwin Exim Private Limited (abbreviated "the Company").
- They approached the second respondent/complainant for financial assistance in order to meet immediate financial needs in its business. The financial assistance was provided between July and September 2015, and the Company issued five cheques in total. The cheques were returned. The complainant then initiated proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881. The matter is currently being heard by the appropriate Court.
- Furthermore, on the same instrument of issuance of cheques for which proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of the Act, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging cheating under Section 420 of the IPC on the part of the Company and its Directors.
- Following the filing of the said private complaint, the learned Magistrate orders an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Police registers a FIR in response to the aforementioned direction under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- It was stated, "The complainant could not have registered a complaint for cheating after invoking the jurisdiction of the competent criminal Court by filing a complaint alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
- It would be the same as filing two complaints for the same offence." Furthermore, the private complaint filed for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC contradicts the Supreme Court's decision in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA V. STATE OF U.P., reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287.
ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
It was stated, "Invoking Section 138 of the Act does not prevent the complainant from registering a crime for an offence punishable under Section 406 or 420 of the IPC because it amounts to cheating and inducement on the part of the accused. It is a trial, and the petitioners must come clean and seek dismissal of the petition."
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
The bench cited the Supreme Court's decision in the case of SANGEETABEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL V. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR (2012) 7 SCC 621, in which the court considered whether a petition under Section 420 of the IPC would be maintainable during the pendency or even after conviction under Section 138 of the Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the two work in different fields.
CONCLUSION
"A perusal of the impugned complaint would clearly indicate that the complaint is in compliance with the mandate of the judgement in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA as the complainant in the complaint narrates the efforts taken for registration of a crime before the Police and the affidavit accompanies the complaint," the court said after reviewing it.
"Therefore, the complaint registered is also not in violation of the Apex Court's judgement in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA," it concluded.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
