close
close

Semainede4jours

Real-time news, timeless knowledge

Check Return Complaint U/S 138 NI Act Sustainable Even If Civil Suit is Filed for Remediation: Karnataka High Court Reiterates
bigrus

Check Return Complaint U/S 138 NI Act Sustainable Even If Civil Suit is Filed for Remediation: Karnataka High Court Reiterates

The Karnataka High Court ruled that a complaint for an offense punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be admissible, notwithstanding the civil suit filed for recovery of money.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna ordered the whites to dismiss the petition filed by one Lalji Kesha Vaid. “The complaint for the offense punishable under Article 138 of the Law shall be maintainable notwithstanding the remedial proceedings initiated by the filing of a civil suit, even though both arise from the same cause of action.”

Vaid had challenged the court’s decision to issue summons to him on the specific complaint filed by Dayanand R under Section 138 of the Act. He submitted that if civil proceedings were instituted for the purpose of recovering the full amount and the Court decided the case even at a later time, it would prevent the criminal law from being invoked for the offense punishable under Article 138 of the Convention. To behave.

The complainant opposed the defense, arguing that the filing of a civil lawsuit was for the purpose of compensation and that merely filing a civil lawsuit would not constitute an obstacle to the application of the criminal law due to the bounce of a check presented for collection due to non-payment.

The bench relied on the decision of the Apex court in the case of D.PURUSHOTAMA REDDY v. K.SATEESH, (2008) 8 SCC 505; here the court decided that two trials could be continued. The two would be a civil suit seeking recovery of the amount and a suit relating to the offense punishable under Section 138 of the Act.

The court panel said, “Since the entire petition is based on the aforementioned justification and the response that the justification is unsustainable, there is no decision to intervene in the criminal case initiated by the defendant. As a result, the petition was rejected as there was no justification in the petition.”

Appearance: Petitioner’s Advocate V Sudhakar

Advocate Vijetha R Naik for the Respondent

Quote No: 2024 LiveLaw (Snow) 450

Case Title: Lalji Kesha Vaid AND Dayanand R

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 331 OF 2022.

Click Here to Read/Download the Order