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

Criminal Case Maintainable Despite Pending Civil Suit for Cheque Bounce – Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court in Sri Lalji Kesha Vaid v. Sri Dayanand R. reaffirmed that criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, remain maintainable even if a civil suit for recovery of the same amount has been initiated. Citing Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra (2009) 13 SCC 729, the court... Read more » Read more »

M/s. Shriram Investments Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax III, Chennai (2024 INSC 760)

The appellant initially filed a return in November 1989 and revised it twice. The Income Tax Officer rejected the second revised return, declaring that it was barred by limitation u/s 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which only allows a revised return to be filed before the earlier of two dates – one year... Read more » Read more »

Reconciling Conflicting Supreme Court Judgments: High Courts Must Harmonize Rather Than Choose

Judicial precedents play a crucial role in shaping legal principles and ensuring consistency in the application of the law. However, there are instances where two Supreme Court judgments appear to contradict each other, creating a complex situation for High Courts. How should High Courts proceed in such cases? Can they selectively follow... 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.