Supreme Court: MPs/MLAs Cannot Claim Immunity Under Constitution of India For Receiving Bribe  ||  Delhi High Court: Wife Igniting Animosity and Hostility in Child Against Father Amounts to Cruelty  ||  SC: Legal Representatives Not Responsible to Discharge Contractual Obligations of Deceased  ||  SC: Amend Arbitration Act For Prescribing Limitation Period For Applications u/s 11 of the Act  ||  Supreme Court: Granting Decree of Specific Performance is Discretionary  ||  SC: Can’t Convict Accused For Keeping Narcotics if Mandate u/s 52 of NDPS Act Not Fulfilled by Police  ||  SC: Words Spoken in Anger Without Any Intention to Abet Suicide, Not Criminal Instigation  ||  Tel. HC: Constitutional Validity of Section 38(2) of RP Act and Rule 5.7.1 of ECI’s Handbook Upheld  ||  MP HC: Power Exercised u/s 319 of CrPC Must Come Before Acquittal Order in Case of Joint Result  ||  Del. HC: Order of CIC Directing CBDT to Give Information Regarding Ram Janmabhoomi Trust Set Aside    

Bindhu A.V. Vs. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (P) Ltd. and Ors. - (High Court of Kerala) (17 Jan 2020)

Mere fact of arbitration clause in agreement cannot prevent criminal prosecution against accused, if an act constituting a criminal offence is prima facie made out

MANU/KE/0107/2020

Criminal

In facts of present case, the complainant is a company conducting chitty business. Mr. M.L. George was the subscriber of four chitties conducted by the complainant company. Mr. George had bid the chitties for Rs. 18,75,000 each and the amount was paid to him. Thereafter, he failed to repay the balance chitty amount of Rs. 45,27,242 to the complainant Company. The accused was the surety of Mr. George in the chitty transactions. She agreed to repay the amount and issued a cheque for Rs. 45,27,242 to the complainant in discharge of the liability.

The complainant presented the cheque in the bank. It was returned unpaid due to lack of sufficient amount in the account of the accused. The complainant sent a lawyer notice to the accused demanding payment of the amount of the cheque. The accused received the notice. She did not send any reply. She did not pay the amount of the cheque. Present petition under Section 482 of of Code of Criminal Procedure, (CrPC) is filed by the accused for quashing the proceedings initiated against her on the ground that the complainant has initiated arbitration proceedings against her and Mr. George.

It is elementary that, the civil proceedings or arbitration proceedings for recovery of money and the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 are based on independent cause of action. Merely because, there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, that cannot prevent criminal prosecution against the accused, if an act constituting a criminal offence is, prima facie, made out.

In Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal , it was held that merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. Arbitration proceedings and criminal proceedings against a person, based on the same transaction, can be conducted or continued simultaneously.

The other factual disputes involved in the complaint filed against the Petitioner cannot be decided in a petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC. In the aforesaid circumstances, the prayer for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner cannot be allowed. The petition is dismissed.

Relevant : Trisuns Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others MANU/SC/0581/1999

Tags : CHEQUE BOUNCE   PROCEEDINGS   QUASHING OF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved