Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, 2022 Scc Online J&K 565

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh...

The court observed that, a complaint under section 138 of NI Act, when an FIR of offences under section 420, 560 IPC was already filed with respect to circumstances of identical nature/ same transaction does not amount to forum shopping or double jeopardy. The offence under section 420 IPC is made during the issuance of the cheque while that is not the case with the offence covered under section 138 of NI Act. Both the offences are independent and distinct from one other and do not attract the principle of double jeopardy. The court held that it is within the rights of the respondent to go ahead with the prosecution for both the offences simultaneously under section 138 of NI Act and section 420 of IPC.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Sterling Defence Material Can Demolish the Prosecution Case: Supreme Court Reaffirms Quashing Power under Section 482 CrPC

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Rahul v. State of U.P., 2026 INSC 825, relying upon Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Rajiv Thapar & Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor, reiterated that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash an FIR at Read more »

State of Rajasthan Vs. Televar & Ors (2011) 11 SCC 666

The Court observed that, even though the circumstances may suggest that the theft and the murder may have been committed simultaneously, it is risky to assume that the person in possession of the stolen item was also responsible for the murder when there is just recovered stolen property as evidence Read more »

Meena (Smt.) W/o. Balwant Hemke Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2000 (5) SCC 21

The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, mere recovery of the currency note and positive result of the phenolphthalein test not enough in the peculiar circumstances of the case, to establish guilt of the appellant on the basis of perfunctory nature of materials and prevaricating type of evidence. That the Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.