The Supreme Court recently delivered a significant judgment reinforcing the applicability of the res judicata doctrine in criminal proceedings, emphasising that prior judicial findings in criminal cases, especially those related to factual disputes, must be respected in subsequent legal actions between the same parties.
Case Background
The case traces back to a business transaction involving ID Packaging, owned by R.N. Tyagi, who had issued several cheques in 1997-1998, most of which were dishonoured. Subsequently, Ruchira Papers filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) in 2002, resulting in Tyagi’s conviction. However, his defence claiming the liability was cleared through demand drafts was rejected by the court, and the conviction was upheld on appeal.
In 2012, Tyagi settled the matter through a one-time payment of ₹3,20,385, as recorded by a High Court order that disposed of both civil and criminal cases. Despite this, Tyagi filed a criminal complaint against S.C. Garg, alleging fraud and double recovery regarding the dishonoured cheques. Garg’s plea to quash the charges was rejected, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Parties
Garg’s counsel argued that the prosecution was baseless since the company involved was not arraigned as an accused, and there were no personal allegations against him. He also contended that the criminal proceedings were a retaliatory move following Tyagi’s earlier conviction under the NI Act and the subsequent settlement.
On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel argued that Garg had allegedly encashed the cheques even after Tyagi had cleared the dues, resulting in a double payment and potential cheating. The court, therefore, needed to determine whether these allegations warranted a trial.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court’s key observation revolved around the issue of res judicata, the principle that a matter already decided by a competent court cannot be re-litigated. The Court emphasised that the defence of “payment via demand drafts” had already been examined and rejected in the previous criminal proceedings. The trial court had concluded that the demand drafts did not correspond to the dishonoured cheques, a finding upheld on appeal. This rendered the defence irrelevant in any subsequent litigation.
The Court further explored the applicability of res judicata in criminal cases, acknowledging that while some rulings have excluded its application, precedent set by larger benches confirmed its relevance. Referencing Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (1956), the Court reiterated the Privy Council’s statement that the maxim res judicata applies equally to both civil and criminal proceedings.
By this reasoning, the Court concluded that Tyagi could not revive claims based on the same defence that had already been dismissed. It held that the continuation of the criminal case, which sought to litigate a matter already decided, was legally unsustainable and should be quashed.
Vicarious Liability and Corporate Offences
Another critical aspect of the case was the issue of vicarious liability. The Court stressed that when a company is involved in a criminal offence, it must be arraigned as an accused for any individual, such as an officer or representative, to face prosecution. In this case, the company had not been made an accused, rendering any proceedings against Garg legally invalid.
The Court reiterated its previous rulings, such as Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane (2015), and emphasized that officers of a company cannot be prosecuted in isolation unless the company itself is charged with the offense.
Decision
In light of these observations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Garg. The Court held that the case lacked merit, both on the grounds of re-litigation of a previously decided issue and the failure to meet the statutory requirements for vicarious liability.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal concerns, please consult a qualified attorney.
Also Read:
Delayed But Not Denied: Supreme Court Revives Claims Under Limitation Law
Uniform Civil Code is Not Just Law, It’s Humanity, Says Karnataka HC
