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

Supreme Court: Partner’s Contributed Property Becomes Firm’s Asset, Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Ownership

In Sachin Jaiswal vs. Hotel Alka Raje, SLP(C) No. 18717/2022, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Section 14 of the Partnership Act, 1932, any asset contributed by a partner to a firm becomes the property of the firm, and neither the contributing partner nor their legal heirs can claim exclusive Read more »

Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2024 INSC 763)

In Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2024 INSC 763), the Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC) disqualified candidates with private university diplomas unapproved by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) in its recruitment for Junior Engineers. This criterion was challenged based on Bharathidasan University v. AICTE Read more »

Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Others; 2009 (2) SCC 570

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that It is the Duty of the Disciplinary Authority to record reasons. The orders of disciplinary authority and appellate authority entails civil consequences. Hence, the orders must be based on recorded reasons. 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.