Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

N. P. Murugesan v. C. Krishnamurthy

Criminal Appeal · 2018 INSC 581Decided 4 Jul 2018
Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 2018
Justice Kurian Joseph · Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Background

The appellant had been convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which punishes dishonour of a cheque for insufficiency of funds. He appealed to the Supreme Court against his conviction and sentence. During the hearing, the Court was informed that the cheque amount had, by then, already been paid to and acknowledged by the respondent (the complainant).

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and held that, given the cheque amount had already been paid and accepted, complete justice required that the entire litigation be brought to a close ("given a quietus"), subject to appropriate conditions. It therefore set aside the conviction and sentence and allowed the appeal, but directed the appellant to pay Rs. 10,000 as costs to the Mediation Centre attached to the Madras High Court within four weeks. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

Lesson Learnt

In cheque-bounce (Section 138) cases, once the underlying cheque amount has actually been paid and accepted by the complainant, courts will often set aside a conviction to bring finality to the dispute, but typically on the condition that the convicted person pays some costs, rather than walking away free of any consequence.

N. P. Murugesan v. C. Krishnamurthy – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware