J. VEDHASINGH versus R.M. GOVINDAN & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 888 · Decided: 11-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
J. VEDHASINGH
v.
R.M. GOVINDAN & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal [Arising Out of SLP(Crl.) No. 2864 of 2019])
AUGUST 11, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 and s.300 (1) –
High Court allowed criminal petition filed by respondents no.1 to 4
u/s.482 CrPC and quashed proceedings u/ss.120B, 406, 420 and
34 IPC taking into consideration that proceedings u/s.138 of the
NI Act pertaining to the same cause of action and on the same facts
and grounds were pending, prior to registration of the present
proceedings – It held that, looking to the allegations made in the
FIR, only offence u/s.138 of NI Act can be made out and continuance
of the proceedings for offences u/ss.406, 420, 120B and 34 IPC
would amount to abuse of process of the Court – Legal issue before
two Judge Bench of Supreme Court as to whether on similar set of
allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under
NI Act which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC
unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal and, whether the
bar of s.300(1) CrPC would attract for such trial – Judgments relied
upon by the parties were rendered by judges’ bench of equal strength
(strength of two Judges) and in conflict with each other on the legal
issue involved – Therefore, questions of law formulated for answer
by a larger bench for decision – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
– s.138 – IPC – ss.120B, 406, 420 and 34.
Judicial discipline – Issue decided in a judgment – Conflicting
view in a subsequent  judgment by a judges’ bench of equal strength
– Held: Judicial decorum demands that if judgments passed by two
judges’ bench of equal strength are conflicting, the issue of law
involved must be referred to a larger bench as the same is desirable
to avoid confusion and maintain consistency of law.
Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court
HELD:1.1. In the judgment of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai
Patel it was held that the requirement to prove an offence under
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 888
888
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
889
the NI Act and an offence under the IPC is different, and it was
observed that there may be some overlapping of facts but the
ingredients of the offences are entirely different, therefore, the
subsequent cases are not barred by any statutory provisions.
While in the case of G. Sagar Suri and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao,
the Court concluded that as per Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. no one
can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a
different offence on the same facts, therefore, the prosecution
under Section 420 of the IPC is barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C
and accordingly liable to be quashed. [Para 12][898-G-H; 899-A]
1.2. In the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel the
judgments of G. Sagar Suri and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao have
been referred but distinguished on the ground that it was not
raised and decided that ingredients of both offences were not
same, and the bar of Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. would not attract.
[Para 12][899-B]
1.3. The judgments cited by both the parties are rendered
by benches having the strength of two Judges. The bench of this
Court in the case of  Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel followed in
M/s. V.S. Reddy and Sons has taken a different view from the
previous judgments of G. Sagar Suri and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao
rendered by the bench of the same strength. The view taken in
both the cases are conflicting to each other. It is a trite law, if any
issue is decided in a previous judgment by a bench of the same
strength, conflicting view in the subsequent judgment should not
be rendered on the pretext that the issue has not been raised or
considered in the previous judgment. Judicial decorum demands
that if judgments passed by two judges’ bench of equal strength
are conflicting, the issue of law involved must be referred to a
larger bench as the same is desirable to avoid confusion and
maintain consistency of law. The aforesaid judgments cited by
the respective parties are conflicting, however, to avoid any
further confusion and to maintain consistency, it is deemed
appropriate to refer this issue for decision by the larger bench to
answer the following questions: (1) Whether the ratio of the
judgment, in the case of G. Sagar Suri and Kolla Veera Raghav
Rao lay down the correct law? or The view taken in the case of
J. VEDHASINGH v. R.M. GOVINDAN & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
Sangeetaben Ma

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.