Case Law Details
Case Name : Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
Supreme Court of India
Sponsored
Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on the judgment in G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 636, wherein during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act, prosecution under Sections 406/420 IPC had been launched. This Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 406/420 IPC, observing that it would amount to abuse of process of law. In fact, the issue as to whether the ingredients of both the offences were same, had neither been raised nor decided. Therefore, the ratio of that judg
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
I had made a compromise with the Complaintant against 138 Ni act and after comporomise A Fresh cheque was issued to complantant .But again these cheque was dishonoured “In sufficient Funds”
My Question is CAN COMPANTANT AGAIN FILED CASE UNDER 138ni aCT OR is there any JUDGEMENT that a COMPLAINTANT does not file case under 138NI act after Compormise
Request for reply