LALIT KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

LALIT KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

A second cheque issued in settlement of the same liability does not create a new liability unless the compromise is effected; entertaining a second complaint is misconceived when directors have already been punished for the original liability under Section 138 NI Act.

Parties
Appellant: Laut Kumar Sharma; Appellant: Bela Narula; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent: Respondent No. 2 (Complainant)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Revision Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Dishonour of Cheque, Criminal Liability of Directors, Multiple Complaints
Criminal Law Negotiable Instruments Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Dishonour of Cheque Criminal Liability of Directors Multiple Complaints

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laut Kumar Sharma

Appellant

Bela Narula

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Respondent No. 2 (Complainant)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Revision Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a second complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable for a cheque issued in terms of compromise, when directors have already been punished for the original liability

Ratio Decidendi

A second cheque issued in settlement of the same liability does not create a new liability unless the compromise is effected; entertaining a second complaint is misconceived when directors have already been punished for the original liability under Section 138 NI Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Second complaint set aside;
  • Respondent to bear costs of appellants;