Lawyers at Service

05/01/2025

Appellate Court Has...
Appellate Court Has Discretion Not To Order The Deposit Of 20% Of The Amount U/S. 148 NI Act In Appropriate & Exceptional Cases: SC
By - Riya Rathore
Update: 2025-01-04 12:00 GMT
Appellate Court Has Discretion Not To Order The Deposit Of 20% Of The Amount U/S. 148 NI Act In Appropriate & Exceptional Cases: SC
facebook icontwitter iconlinkedin icontubmlr iconpinterest icon
whatsapp icon
The Supreme Court observed that an appellate court has the discretion not to order the deposit of 20% of the amount under Section 148 Negotiable Instruments Act in appropriate and exceptional cases.

The Court quashed the Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which dismissed a Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC filed by Muskan Enterprises (Appellant). The Court remitted the matter to the Sessions Court for reconsideration of the deposit condition under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act), 1881.

The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed, “It would amount to a travesty of justice if exercise of discretion, which is permitted by the legislature and could indeed be called for in situations such as these pointed out above, or in any other appropriate situation, is not permitted to be exercised by the Appellate Court by a judicial interpretation of ‘may’ being read as ‘shall’ in sub-section (1) of Section 148 and the aggrieved appellant is compelled to make a deposit of minimum 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court, notwithstanding any opinion that the Appellate Court might have formed at the stage of ordering deposit as regards invalidity of the conviction and sentence under challenge on any valid ground.”

Advocate Shumaila Altaf represented the Appellants, while AAG Mohd Irshad appeared for the Respondents.

05/01/2025

It is well settled that for mens rea to be established, something better than vague statements must be produced before the court. As evidenced by the annexures referred to above, i.e. the FIR, the preliminary investigation report as also the concluding portion of the chargesheet, no direct allegation nor any evidence in support thereof can be found attributing intent to the appellant. It cannot be said, then, that a case u/s 354 IPC

02/12/2024

17/06/2024

Eid ul Adha Mubarak.

17/03/2024

The Supreme Court held that the exercise of power to grant interim compensation in cheque bounce cases under sub-section (1) of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) is discretionary and not mandatory.
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the appellant, alleging dishonour of a cheque made towards payment of agreed amounts in various business ventures. Subsequently, the complainant sought interim compensation under Section 143A of the NI Act, which was granted by the trial court and upheld by the Jharkhand High Court.

The Supreme Court had to decide on the factors to be considered while exercising powers under sub-section (1) of Section 143A of the N.I. Act.

Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “Section 143A can be invoked before the conviction of the accused, and therefore, the word “may” used therein can never be construed as “shall”. The tests applicable for the exercise of jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 148 can never apply to the exercise of jurisdiction under subsection (1) of Section 143A of the N.I. Act.”

AOR Shubham Bhalla represented the petitioner, while Advocate Prateek Yadav appeared for the respondent.

The appellant had challenged the said order before the Supreme Court arguing that Section 143A of the N.I. Act uses the word ‘may,’ which made the provision discretionary.

“While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors,” the Court remarked

The Court provided the following parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A of the N.I. Act:

The Court must evaluate the merits of a case made out by the complainant and the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application. “The financial distress of the accused can also be a consideration.”
If a complainant made out a prima facie case, only then a direction to pay interim compensation could be issued by the Court.
The Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation if the defence of the accused was found to be prima facie plausible.
If the Court concludes that a case warrants interim compensation, it will also "have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted." While doing so, the Court should also consider several factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc.
The Court stated the parameters given by the Court were not exhaustive and that “there could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a given case.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal.

07/02/2024

Any lawyer from chandigarh.

04/02/2024

Sec 498A/
MP High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Husband's Relatives Upon Noting Allegations Lacked Specificity Such As Date & Time Of Dowry Demand
By - Sebin JamesUpdate: 2024-02-04 04:20 GMT
madhya pradesh high court, Acceptance
Citing the lack of 'specific' allegations in the F.I.R. as well as the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a case registered against the close relatives of the complainant's husband for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

The single judge bench of Justice Maninder S. Bhatti pointed out that the petitioners, i.e., mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant, were not residing with the complainant at the relevant time. The complainant submitted that the petitioners used to visit her at the house where she lived along with her husband. During such visits, the petitioners allegedly demanded dowry from her to secure their financial interests.

“…There are no particulars like specific date and time when the complaint was subjected to the demand of dowry. As per complainant own showing the present petitioners were not residing with the present complainant but the complainant made an effort to demonstrate that the present petitioners used to visit her at place. The said particulars have not been disclosed by the complainant…”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur explained.

According to Justice M.S. Bhatti, deep scrutiny of the case revealed that there were only 'omnibus and bald allegations' against the petitioners as evident from the F.I.R and Section 161 statements. When it is not disputed that the complainant and the accused relatives were living in two separate places, 'specific allegations' should have been made against the petitioners as enunciated in various landmark judgments of the Supreme Court, the single-judge bench noted.

Terming the allegations as vague and general, the High Court found that the pending proceedings against the petitioners are unsustainable. The F.I.R, chargesheet and pursuant proceedings before Judicial Magistrate First Class Gauharganj (Raisen District) was accordingly quashed.

The prosecution submitted that the mother-in-law of the complainant did not allow her to keep her belongings at the marital home for long. The complainant stayed there for two months after marriage; she moved to Rachna Nagar along with her husband afterwards. However, she was subjected to harassment and manhandling by her husband there. According to the F.I.R., the petitioners who occasionally visited the complainant also subjected her to cruelty by demanding Rs 5 Lakhs as dowry.

The counsel appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Abhigya Verma, contended that his clients were falsely arraigned in the case merely because of the close relations they have with the complainant's husband. The counsel also placed reliance on various apex court decisions to convince the court that the allegations pertaining to the offence, as found in the F.I.R and statements, are vague and not specific.

The state tried argued that no interference is warranted as of now and the allegations must be tested at the stage of evidence later.

Agreeing with the counsel appearing for the petitioners, the court noted that though the statements of the complainant and her parents are identical, those statements do not have specific allegations. Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010), Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2012) and Kahakashan Kausar alias Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141] were extensively relied upon by the High Court before pronouncing the decision in this case.

Accordingly, the case was quashed.

Advocate Abhigya Verma represented the petitioners. Government Advocate C.S Parmar appeared for the State. Respondent No.2, who is the original complainant, did not enter appearance in the criminal appeal.

Case Title: Smt. Geetababi Khambra V. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr..

Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 59501 of 2021

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 25

31/01/2024

Landlords enjoy the good news