LexLALIT KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
--..+ .. ' ' ,; [2008] 7 S.C.R. 797 LAUT KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 2008) MAY 6, 2008 .·,; (S.8. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981; S. 138: A B Dishonor of Cheque - A company allegedly taken loan from respondent - Cheque issued by the company C discharging loan amount bounced for insufficient fund - Complaint against two directors of the company - Admitting the liability as personal, directors entering into a compromise with the respondent and issued another cheque for the ban amount - The cheque again bounced for insufficient fund - D Respondent filed another complaint against the directors of the company including appellants, other directors o.f the company - Correctness of-Held: No new liability is created by issuing second cheque by the accused by entering into compromise with the respondent - There was only one E transaction between the accused directors and the respondent in the first complaint and the accused have been punished - Hence, the question of entertaining the second complaint did not arise. Appellants, who were directors of a company, F allegedly took certain amount of loan from the responchmt. In discharge of the loan amount, a cheque was issued by the company in favour of respondent, which had allegedfy bounced back for insufficient fund. Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against two directors G of the company u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ~nd uls. 420 IPC. During pendency of the complaint, parties tried to resolve the dispute. One of the accused issued a cheque for the entire amount in favour of the 797 H . ··\' 798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R. A respondent and the other accused entered into an >-· agreement with the complainant admitting the liability in question as his personal one. On presentation, the cheque was returned. Respondent No.1 again filed a complaint not only against the directors as in the first complaint but B also against other two directors of the company, the appellants. In the meantime, the trial Court in the first ~ complaint found the accused guilty of committing the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Act and they were sentenced accordingly. In the second complaint, c appellants filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for setting aside the order summoning them. The same was dismissed. A revision application filed thereagainst by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Evidently, the second cheque was issued ~ in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. It did not create a new liability. As the compromise E did not fructify, the same cannot be said to have been issued towards payment of debt. (Para - 15) [803-B] 1.2 The second cheque was issued by one of the directors of the company for the purpose of arriving at a settlement. The said cheque was not issued in discharge F of the debt or liability of the Company of which the appellants were said to be the directors. There was only ~- one transaction between the two directors of the Company and the complainant. They have already been punished. Thus, the question of entertaining the second complaint G did not arise. (Para - 17) [803-E-F] CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal No. 818 of 2008. . .. "' From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.2007 of the High H LA.UT KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR v. STATE OF U.P. 799 ....J & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.] Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 5/ A 2003. Rajeev Sharma (for Rameshwar Prasad Goyal) for the Appellants. Brij Bhushan for the Respondents. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 5.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Application of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments c Act, 1881 (for short "the Act") in the facts and circumstances of the case is involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 19.02.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. (5) of 2003. 3. Mis. Mediline India (P) Ltd. is a company registered D .>- and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It had two directors, viz., Shri Ashish Narula and Shri Manish Arora. The Company took ioan for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Two cheques bearing Nos. 0989637 dated 30.11.1999 and 0989638 dated 10.12.1999 for Rs. 3,00,000/
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.