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

Trust Without Liability: The Supreme Court Clarifies Interplay Of Trusts And Cheque Dishonour Complaints Under The NI Act

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sankar Padam Thapa v. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal (2025 INSC 1210) has conclusively addressed a long-standing ambiguity at the intersection of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. The Court was called upon to decide whether a complaint under... Read more »

The Concept Of Minimum Wages Under The Code On Wages: An Analytical Study

The concept of minimum wages is fundamental in ensuring fair remuneration for labour and upholding human dignity. In India, the regulation of minimum wages has undergone significant changes with the enactment of the Code on Wages, 2019, which seeks to consolidate and simplify wage-related laws.... Read more »

Inheritance Rights of Children from Void/Voidable Marriages.

Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2023 INSC 783) The Supreme Court in this case clarified the legal ambiguity surrounding the inheritance rights of children born from void or voidable marriages. The appeal came about in response to a Karnataka High Court decision in which the children of a man’s second (and void) marriage asked for part of... 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.