PREM RAJ versus POONAMMA MENON & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 29 · Decided: 02-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KAROL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 29 : 2024 INSC 260
Prem Raj 
v. 
Poonamma Menon & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1858 of 2024)
02 April 2024
[Sanjay Karol* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether, a criminal proceeding can be initiated and the accused 
therein held guilty with natural consequences thereof to follow, in 
connection with a transaction, in respect of which a decree by a 
competent Court of civil jurisdiction, already stands passed.
Headnotes
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Appellant borrowed 
Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant – On receipt of demand, 
appellant issued a cheque for the said amount – It was 
dishonoured due to insufficient funds and ‘payments stopped 
by drawer’ – The complainant issued a notice of demand – 
No action on the part of the appellant was taken – Pursuant 
thereto, a criminal proceeding was initiated against appellant 
– Equally, though, the appellant had filed a civil suit with 
prayers to declare the said cheque as a security; direction for 
return of cheque and prohibitory injunction restraining any 
steps to encash the said cheque – The suit was decreed in 
favour of appellant – However, the Court seized of the s.138 
N.I. Act complaint, convicted the appellant herein to undergo 
simple imprisonment for one year as well as pay compensation 
of Rs.2 lakhs in default whereof, he was to undergo further 
simple imprisonment for six months – First Appellate upheld 
the conviction – The High Court, in revision, observed no 
perversity in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and 
First Appellate Court – Propriety:
Held: The position as per K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of 
Police & Anr is that sentence and damages would be excluded 
from the conflict of decisions in civil and criminal jurisdictions 
of the Courts – Therefore, in the present case, considering that 
the Court in criminal jurisdiction has imposed both sentence 
and damages, the ratio of the above-referred decision dictates 
30
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
that the Court in criminal jurisdiction would be bound by the civil 
Court having declared the cheque, the subject matter of dispute, 
to be only for the purposes of security – In that view of the 
matter, the criminal proceedings resulting from the cheque being 
returned unrealised due to the closure of the account would be 
unsustainable in law and, therefore, are to be quashed and set 
aside. [Paras 11 and 12]
Case Law Cited
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah [2005] 2 
SCR 708 : (2005) 4 SCC 370 – followed.
K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police & Anr. [2002] 
Supp. 2 SCR 350 : (2002) 8 SCC 87 – relied on.
Karam Chand Ganga Prasad & Anr. v. Union of India & 
Ors. (1970) 3 SCC 694;  M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras 
[1954] 1 SCR 1144 : AIR 1954 SC 397; Vishnu Dutt 
Sharma v. Daya Sapra (Smt.) [2009] 7 SCR 977 : (2009) 
13 SCC 729; Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja 
[2020] 12 SCR 189 : (2021) 1 SCC 414 – referred to.
List of Acts
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
List of Keywords
Dishonour of cheque; Criminal Proceedings; Civil suit; Conflict of 
decisions in civil and criminal jurisdictions.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1858 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2018 of the High Court 
of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRLRP No. 1111 of 2011
Appearances for Parties
K. Parameshwar, Ms. Arti Gupta, Ms. Kanti, Chinmay Kalgaonkar, 
Ms. Raji Gururaj, Advs. for the Appellant.
Pranjal Kishore, Atul Shankar Vinod, Dilip Pillai, Ajay Jain, Ms. Madiya 
Mushtaq Nadroo, M. P. Vinod, Alim Anvar, Nishe Rajen Shonker, 
Mrs. Anu K Joy, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 
31
Prem Raj v. Poonamma Menon & Anr.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjay Karol, J.
Leave granted.
2.	
Appellant herein challenges judgment and order dated 23rd January, 
2018 passed in Crl.R.P. No.1111 of 20111, whereby the High Court of 
Kerala allowed, only in part, his Revision Petition against the judgment 
and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur,2 dated 
11th January, 2011, in Criminal Appeal No.673 of 2007, which, in turn, 
upheld his conviction, as handed down by the learned Judicial First 
Class Magistrate3 vide order dated 14th August, 2007 in CC No.51 of 
2003, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.4 
3.	
The sole issue that we are required to consider is, whether, a criminal 
proceeding can be initiated and the accused therein held guilty 
with

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