{"id":270259,"date":"2022-07-18T09:00:06","date_gmt":"2022-07-18T03:30:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=270259"},"modified":"2025-05-16T09:46:47","modified_gmt":"2025-05-16T04:16:47","slug":"whether-concurrent-prosecutions-under-s-138-ni-act-and-s-420-ipc-will-amount-to-double-jeopardy-jk-and-ladakh-hc-analyses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/18\/whether-concurrent-prosecutions-under-s-138-ni-act-and-s-420-ipc-will-amount-to-double-jeopardy-jk-and-ladakh-hc-analyses\/","title":{"rendered":"Whether concurrent prosecutions under S. 138, NI Act and S. 420, IPC, will amount to double jeopardy? J&K and Ladakh HC analyses"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court<\/span>: While deciding the instant petitions, the question that came up before that Court was whether a person can be prosecuted for offence under Section 420<\/a> of IPC<\/a> as also for offence under Section 138<\/a> of NI Act<\/a>, on the same set of facts and whether or not it would amount to double jeopardy. The single Judge Bench of Sanjay Dhar, J., observed that the offences under Section 138<\/a>, NI<\/a> act and Section 420<\/a>, IPC<\/a>, are two distinct offences, therefore the principle of double jeopardy or rule of estoppel does not come into play.<\/p>\n

Relevant Facts of the case<\/span>: The two clubbed petitions dealt with complaints filed by the respondents under S. 138<\/a> of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a> concerning the sale of a patch of land. In both cases, the petitioners approached the respondents to sell the land and promised to pay damages if the sale did not proceed. In both cases the land could not be cold thereby the respondents became entitled to damages. The petitioners issued cheques drawn on HDFC Bank Branch unit Baghat, Barzulla, bearing the amount that was to be paid as damages; however, the cheques were dishonoured with the endorsement “drawers account closed<\/i>”.<\/p>\n

Contentions<\/span>: The petitioners submitted before the Court that the respondent, prior to the filing of the complaints under S. 138<\/a>, NI Act<\/a>, had filed an FIR for offences under Section 420<\/a>, 506<\/a> IPC<\/a>, the contents of which are identical to the impugned complaints. The petitioners argued that they cannot be prosecuted twice on the basis of some set of facts as it would amount to double jeopardy. It was also contended that continuance of proceedings in the impugned criminal complaints would be an abuse of process of law and it would amount of forum shopping.<\/p>\n

Analysis\/ Observations<\/span>: Perusing the facts and contentions of the matter, the Court referred to Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay<\/i>, 1953 SCR 730,<\/a> wherein the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had dealt with the issue of double jeopardy and held that the fundamental right which is guaranteed under Art. 20(2) of the Constitution enunciates the principle of “double jeopardy” i.e., a person must not be put in peril twice for the same offence. The High Court further referred the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat<\/span>, (2012) 7 SCC 621.<\/a><\/p>\n