S. 138 NI ACT | Check the rejection case that cannot be maintained if the applicant is a party to illegal transactions: High Court Orissa

In an important decision, The High Court Orissa considered that a plaintiff cannot maintain a case to verify the scientist against the under -accused Section 138 FROM The law on negotiable instruments, 1881 (“Ni act”) if she is a party to illegal transactions or, in other words, if the applicant has granted initial credit to achieve an illegal purpose.

While canceled the charges in accordance with section 138 of Ni act against the accused, the unique bank of Justice of Sibi Sankar Mishra observed –

“The doctrine of you seem delicto It is applied clearly in this case. The court should refuse to apply illegal debts. The applicant, being a party to the illegal transaction from which the current dispute appeared, cannot fit from his own guilt. He was equal partners in the illegal conduct, spoiled by the petitioner’s son. “

The background of the case

The complaint (opposite part no. 2 here) claimed that, based on the insurance offered by the petitioner’s son to facilitate the admission of her son in a governmental medical college, she gave money to the petitioner’s son. However, the petitioner’s son could not arrange the place in the college of government medicine mentioned for her son, as promised by him.

Therefore, a criminal case was initiated against the petitioner’s son for various offenses, which are pending for the trial. At this moment, the applicant asked the money back from the petitioner’s son. To download the mentioned liability, the petitioner issued two checks from her account in favor of the applicant.

After being presented in the bank, the mentioned checks issued by the petitioner were dishonored. The announcement of the legal application was issued by the applicant to the petitioner. As the notification of the application was not responded, a complaint case was initiated. Being assaulted by the registration of the complaint, the petitioner approved the High Court who seeks to conquer the same.

Contents of the parties

Lawyer Dipti Ranjan Mohapatra The appearance for the petitioner claimed that the check issued by the petitioner is not against a legal recoverable debt. Therefore, the criminal complaint under section 138 of Law Ni is not maintained. He claimed that the check was issued to download the so-called petitioner’s son, who took the money from the applicant to arrange a place for her son in the Government Medical College, which is apparently immoral conduct. Therefore, the debt emanated by the transaction mentioned above is a immoral debt, which cannot be recovered under section 138 of Law Ni.

On the other hand, the lawyer who appeared for the plaintiff claimed that if the money is legally recovered, against which the check was issued, it could only be ascertained by performing a complete process. The complaint has been up to more than a year and many took place before the court and, thus, at this delayed stage, no reason for interference should be fun.

If the case of U/S 138 NI NO ACT STATULIBLE?

The Court examined the ingredients of the crime under Section 138, Ni act and based on the decisions of the High Court of Madras, Delhi, Karnataka and Bombay courts in Nvp pandian v. Mm roy (1978), Vereder Singh v. Laxmi Narain & Ors. (2006), R. Parimala Bai v. Bhasekar Narasimhaiah (2018) and Nanda v. Nandkishor (2010), respectively, to maintain that –

“Based on the decisions mentioned above, this Court obtained the opinion that the checks issued by the petitioner in favor of the applicant are not immoral debt to be an immoral debt. One of the ingredients to initiate a procedure under section 138 of Law Ni is, in essence, that the checks issued should be to a debt or another liability, which is legally enforceable or responsibility. ”

She took note of the fact that the petitioner issued checks to the applicant to delete the amount illegally accepted by her son for organizing a place in a government medial college for the applicant’s son. The applicant’s son also participated in the illegal law. Therefore, she retained, the checks issued by the petitioner to download the “immoral debt” created by her son are not enforceable under the law.

Parents should not impose career choices to children

Against the backdrop of this dispute, justice Mishra lamented the regressive approach often adopted by parents in Indian society, where they impose certain career choices. He criticized the shortcut/illegal routes taken by parents to facilitate the education of their children in government/renowned educational institutions, which not only deprive the candidates deserved by their opportunities of law, but also creates an environment of dishonesty and corruption.

“Parents need to evolve beyond a regressive set of mind that imposes career choices, led by unfulfilled personal aspirations. Although it is natural for parents to dream of a successful future for their children, such aspirations must be fed by ethical means, rather than by illegal commands. Parents must act as facilitators in the educational and career journey of their child – guidance and motivation while respecting their individuality. They should help, but do not dictate the decision-making process, support their child’s choices, give them freedom to explore their skills and encourage them to develop and obtain through merit and perseverance. “

The bank was affected by the fact that the applicant, despite the fact that he worked in the police department, made an act that even contradicts the ethos of the society, which is very convicted.

“The ambitious parents who take place in the illegal methods to ensure the admission of their sections to a good college, with the price of meritocracy and correctness in education, are indeed a crime. Such actions not only deprive the candidates deserve to their opportunities of law, but also favor an environment of dishonesty and corruption, eventually damaging the future of education and society in general ”,” said.

Findings on the cancellation of the case

The court said that in the actual scenario, even if the petitioner is tried, he would not lead to his conviction. Therefore, its submission to the rigors of the trial would be a useless exercise and would lead to the trial abuse of the court, because the checks were admitted issued by the petitioner to a debt created by her son by being allowed in the criminal law.

“The applicant itself is also part of the immoral and illegal transaction made with the petitioner’s son. principle “Ex Turpi the cause of non -oritur Actio” applies to the fact in this case. No action appears because of a immoral or illegal cause. Therefore, the court will not help a party in recovering the money if the debt appears from the illegal or immoral activity ”,” Added.

Consequently, the accusation under section 138, an act against the petitioner was canceled. But before breaking up with the judgment, the court clarified –

“The opinion expressed by this Court refers only to the criminal prosecution initiated by the applicant under section 138 of Law NI and the same will not be interpreted as the expression of the opinion regarding the other cases while waiting for the transaction between the petitioner for whom he faces the process or on any other crime made against the petitioner.”

Case title: Smt. Anupama Biswal v. State of Odisha & ANR.

Case no: CRLMC no. 3881 of 2023

Date of Judgment: March 04, 2025

Petitioner advisor: Mr. Dipti Ranjan Mohapatra, lawyer

Advisor for respondents: Mr. Mk Mohanty, addl. Permanent counselor for the state; Mr. Lalit Sahu, lawyer for the opposite side no. 2/plaintiff

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (times) 49

Click here to read/download your order