Dismissal of Petitions for Section 138 NI Act and Section 420 IPC - No Double Jeopardy

The court dismissed both petitions, ruling that the prosecutions under Section 138 NI Act and Section 420 IPC do not constitute double jeopardy or forum shopping. The complaints were filed within the extended limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the trial Magistrate's order was upheld as appropriate.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Double Jeopardy
2. Forum Shopping
3. Timeliness of Filing Complaints

Detailed Analysis:

1. Double Jeopardy:
The petitioner argued that being prosecuted for the same set of facts under both Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) constitutes double jeopardy. The court analyzed the legal position on double jeopardy, referencing several landmark judgments. In *Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay*, the Supreme Court held that double jeopardy applies when a person is tried for the same offense twice, but the offenses under Section 138 NI Act and Section 420 IPC have different ingredients. Similarly, in *State of Bombay vs. S.L. Apte*, the court emphasized that the offenses must be identical for double jeopardy to apply. The court also cited *Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat*, which clarified that the mens rea required for Section 420 IPC is not necessary for Section 138 NI Act, making the offenses distinct. Therefore, the principle of double jeopardy does not apply as the ingredients of the two offenses are different.

2. Forum Shopping:
The petitioner contended that the respondent's filing of multiple complaints for the same transaction amounts to forum shopping. The court rejected this argument, stating that the respondent is within their rights to pursue both prosecutions simultaneously. The court referenced *V. Kutumba Rao vs. Chandrasekhar Raso*, which held that the offenses under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 NI Act are distinct, and prosecuting them simultaneously does not constitute forum shopping. The court concluded that the respondent's actions do not amount to forum shopping or double jeopardy.

3. Timeliness of Filing Complaints:
The petitioner argued that the complaints were filed beyond the stipulated time. The court noted that the complaints were filed during the period covered by the Supreme Court's order in *IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION*, which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from the limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the complaints were not filed belatedly, and the trial Magistrate's order to take cognizance and issue process was upheld.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both petitions, ruling that the prosecutions under Section 138 NI Act and Section 420 IPC do not constitute double jeopardy or forum shopping, and the complaints were filed within the extended limitation period. The trial Magistrate's order was deemed appropriate, and no interference was warranted.

---