Sazid Khan Vs. State of Haryana, 2018 Scc Online P&H 1733

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Sazid Khan Vs....

The court held that, Criminal law does not recognise the terms ‘same cause of action’. A per se FIR cannot be cancelled once evidence implicating the petitioner in a conspiracy has been discovered. As soon as an accused makes an attempt to commit an offence, they are subject to punishment, and many offences of this nature can be charged simultaneously. When the facts and circumstances of the case warrant it, a person may be charged with both offences concurrently under Sections 138 of the NI Act and 420 of the 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

Supreme Court Restrains Courts from Ordering Counselling, Issues Landmark Guidelines to Protect Autonomy, particularly with respect to their sexual orientation

In Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala, 2024 INSC 228, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while hearing a criminal appeal against interim orders of the Kerala High Court in a writ of habeas corpus, laid down important guidelines to safeguard the fundamental rights and dignity of intimate partners and LGBTQ+ persons facing illegal detention. The... Read more » 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 Charge must be proved beyond... Read more » Read more »

The Beneficial intention of a legislation shall be given primacy in cases where two views prevail

Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025 INSC 20)Date of Judgment: 2 January 2025 In Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit 2025 INSC 20, the Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The case revolved around a mother who had gifted... Read more » 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.