2015 (9) TMI 1730 - SC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - stay on proceeding by forming opinion that the cases under Section 420 I.P.C and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - The attractability of Section 300 Cr.P.C. was negatived. The facts in the present case are almost similar to the case stated in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel 2012 (4) TMI 728 - SUPREME COURT , it has been held that 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 attractability of Section 300 Cr.P.C. was negatived. The facts in the present case are almost similar to the case stated in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel. The learned Magistrate before whom both the cases are pending, are directed to proceed in accordance with law - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Legal validity of the order staying criminal proceedings based on similar facts under different sections of the law.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court analyzed the legal validity of an order staying criminal proceedings in a case involving offenses under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court had directed a stay on one case and ordered the trial of the other case. The appellant argued that the High Court erred in staying the proceedings based on the assumption that the cases were based on the same facts, invoking Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant relied on the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, where it was clarified that the mens rea requirement differs between the two offenses. The Supreme Court noted that a similar reasoning was rejected in the past and found the facts of the present case akin to the precedent case. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the Magistrate to proceed with both cases in accordance with the law, emphasizing that judgments in both cases should be pronounced on the same day.