1

“Criminal Courts Are Bound by Civil Courts Judgments to the Extent of Sentences or Damages, Rules the Supreme Court of India”

Blog, Check Bounce Case , , 1

Case Title: Prem Raj v. Poonamma Menon & Anr.

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ………… of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9778/2018)

Order on: 2nd April 2024.

Quorum: Sanjay Karol J. (Authoring Judge), Aravind Kumar J.

Introduction:

The case of Prem Raj v. Poonamma Menon & Anr. is of intricate intersection of civil and criminal law, particularly in situations where both civil and criminal proceedings arise from the same transaction.

 In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India solved the dispute with the fundamental question of whether a criminal proceeding could be initiated when a civil court had already passed a decree concerning the identical matter. This case sheds light on the relationship between civil and criminal jurisdictions, offering insights for legal practitioners and scholars.

 

Facts of the Case:

The matter revolves around a financial transaction between the appellant, Prem Raj, and the complainant, K.P.B Menon. Prem Raj borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 from K.P.B Menon with the commitment to repay it on demand. However, upon demanding repayment, Prem Raj issued a cheque dated June 30, 2002, which subsequently bounced due to insufficient funds. In response, K.P.B Menon filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Simultaneously, Prem Raj initiated civil proceedings by filing a suit pertaining to the same cheque. The civil court ruled in favor of Prem Raj, declaring the cheque as a security cheque. Nonetheless, the criminal court proceeded to convict Prem Raj based on the dishonour of the cheque.

 

Contentions of the Appellant:

– The appellant’s legal counsel contended that civil court judgments hold control over their criminal counterparts.

– Several legal precedents were referred in the arguments, including Karam Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India and Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra.

Contentions of the Respondents:

– The respondents advocated for upholding the decisions rendered by the lower courts and rejected the notion of civil court judgments binding criminal courts.

 

Legal Provisions: Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

 

Issues:

The primary issue confronting the court pertained to the permissibility of maintaining a criminal proceeding when a civil court had already adjudicated upon the same transaction.

 

Court’s Analysis and Judgment:

In its deliberations, the Supreme Court analysed the submissions and pertinent legal precedents. Observing that a judgment of the civil court will be binding on the criminal court to the extent of sentences or damages.

Drawing upon the precedents set forth in Premshanker v. Inspector of Police and Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, the Court underscored the significance of aligning the sentences and damages imposed by criminal courts with the findings of civil courts.

Consequently, given the civil court’s pronouncement declaring the cheque as a security cheque, the criminal proceedings predicated on the dishonour of the same cheque were deemed untenable. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the judgments of the lower courts and directed the restitution of damages imposed on the appellant.

The verdict in Prem Raj v. Poonamma Menon & Anr. stands as a pivotal milestone in elucidating the interplay between civil and criminal proceedings concerning analogous transactions. This landmark judgment underscores the indispensability of coherence between civil and criminal adjudications to uphold the tenets of fairness and expediency in the dispensation of justice. By offering lucid insights into the binding nature of civil court decisions on criminal proceedings in certain contexts, this ruling fortifies the legal framework governing the confluence of civil and criminal law.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click Here to View Judgement

 

0

Any mere irregularity cannot be the reason of quashing of the any Judgement: High court of Delhi.

Blog, Check Bounce Case

Any mere irregularity cannot be the reason of quashing of the any Judgement: High court of Delhi.

Section 392 of the IPC deals with punishment for robbery , Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years. But the term of period comes into conflict sometimes such as issue was dealt in the case of GULAM JILANI @ KALLU AND OTHERS V. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [CRL. A. 619/2017 AND CRL.M.A. 6306/2020, the single judge bench of JUSTICE BIBHU BAKHRU, shed light on the procedure of punishment in such cases.

In the present case the appellants in this matter were previously convicted by the Trial Court for committing an offence punishable under Section 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years along with Rs.3,000/- fine each ,the default of which would attract an additional 3 months of simple imprisonment. The appellants were originally charged under Section 392/411/34 of the IPC. The Trial Court acquitted them under all charges except Section 392, IPC,. Further, it was observed that the complainant, who claimed to be the eyewitness, had various inconsistencies in his statements.

In the view of the patchy evidence relating to the goods recovered from the accused, the Trial Court had acquitted the appellants under Section 411 of the IPC, stating that “the prosecution had failed to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the articles recovered from the possession of the accused were the same articles that were robbed.”

The present appeal was filed in order to impugn the decision of the Trial Court. While the appellants did not contest about whether the robbery itself had been committed or not, they argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the involvement of the appellants in the commission of the said offence, as their testimonies were inconsistent. Further, the appellants, relying on STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) V. SANDEEP [CRL L.P. 620/2019], argued that these testimonies are also unreliable as the accused were shown to the witnesses in the police station, prior to the TIP proceedings.

The HC, though agreeing with this argument, found that since no such contention was advanced before the Trial Court, it was clearly an afterthought. Adding to this, the court also held that “even if the contention that the procedure under Section 267 of the CrPC ought not to have been invoked to produce the appellants before the learned MM, The appellants have failed to establish that they were unfairly prejudiced by the same. In terms of Section 465 of the CrPC, the impugned judgment convicting the appellants cannot be called into question on account of any irregularity in procedure unless it is established that the same resulted in the failure of justice. However, the HC held that the appellants deserved leniency since they were very young at the commission of the offence and now had families to support, and accordingly reduced the punishment.”

Click here to read the Judgement

Judgement reviewed by Pratikshya Pattnaik