whether 420 ipc and 138 NI ACT will lie symultaneously ?

dear friend,

u have taken a right step complaint u/s 138 n.i. act and 420 i.p.c. can run simultaniously.

court  will ask to u that whether u want to press 420, if u say yes then u have to produce the banker's evidence before summonning order.

 Goods delivered against a post daed cheque on the assurance that it will be encashed but the cheque was dishonored when presented for encashment – The accused also made representation which induced the complainant to deliver the goods to them against the post –dated cheque but the cheque was not honored when presented on the due date- Held: In these circumstances the offence u/s 420 was made out.

Jawahar Lal Bansal Vs Mohinder singh 1980 PLR 116 (P&H)

Intention of the drawer at the time the cheques are issued is very material in order to determine whether intention of the accused was to make the payment of only to use these cheques as a means to have the amount due from him reduced and distinction must be made where post-dated cheque is issued in order to discharge insisting liability and a case where it is issued against delivery of goods which an assurance that it will be encashed and presented to the bank in due course as in one case it may amount only to a breach of promise if the cheque is not encashed while in the other case it may be prima facie evidence of an intention to cheat.

Murrari lal Vs shiv prakash 1971 Cr LJ 96 (P&H)

Double Jeopardy

If a complaint u/s 138.NI act is already pending against the appellant there is no occasion of the complainant to prosecute the appellant u/s 420 / 46 IPC and in his doing so it is an clear abuse of process of law and prosecution against the applicant for those offences is liable to be quashed.

Harinderpal Singh Vs State of Punjab (P&H 2008(2) DCR 620

offence is made out u/s 138. complaint on hearing at stage of charge court may plant u/s 420 ipc.and proceed as a complaint case u/s200 cr.p.c.

No , intention to cheat is an important ingredient under the 420 0f I.P.C.therfore while handing over the said cheque no mensrea is attributed on the part of the accused hence no complaint filed simultenousely under 138 and 420.

Kumarpspali,  I am not agree with the opinion of the Siddiq as the Supreme Court and Delhi High court  have held in number of cases that the ingredients of the offence of cheating are to be gethered since inception when the person had tendered the cheque in question to other party. therefore both the provisions cannot be invoked simultaneously.(Bhupender Sharma)Adv.

wht if sec 138 N I act limitation barred can v prosecute under 420,,

For the offence of cheating the dishonest intention of the person is necessary to be established.Merely because a person could take resort to the proceedings u/s 138 of N.I. Act that will not debar the person from complaining of the commission of offence u/s 420 of IPC.

If u can prove that the cheque was issued recently and not before the accounts was close mean, a cheque may be issued as security and now it is presented after 4 years. but if u r able to establish through secondry evidence like ur bank accounts or your books that loan was issued recently and he issued checque then it is sufficient to prove 420 also So dont worry, go ahead.

Regards

adv.kamal.grover@gmail.com

Almost the opinion of all experts is same.

Coz law is same on some points

 U can file order 37 suit for recovery of the amount.

i also agreed with Mr adinath but i want format of complaint U/S 138 read with 420 ipc can u plz ... send me on E-mail

amitkulk_2007@rediffmail.com

N.I. is a complete Act for punishment u/s.138. Procedure for both the Sections are different. In my opinion, there is no need to file complaint u/s138 alongwith Sec.420.

ALL OPINIONS ARE  SAME

I agree with Adinath, AND MOST OF THE OPINION ARE SAME.