Double jeopardy does not bar parallel cheque dishonour and cheating prosecutions when the offences have distinct ingredients.

Double jeopardy does not bar simultaneous prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Penal Code where the offences have different ingredients; Section 138 concerns cheque dishonour after notice, while Section 420 requires dishonest intention at inception. The commentary states that overlapping facts alone do not trigger the constitutional or statutory bar, so parallel proceedings may continue. It also notes that complaints under Section 138 were not time-barred because limitation was computed after excluding the period covered by the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation order. The challenge to cognizance and process therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prosecution for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the same transaction is barred by double jeopardy or the principle of estoppel. (ii) Whether the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether prosecution for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the same transaction is barred by double jeopardy or the principle of estoppel.

Analysis: The bar against double jeopardy applies only when the second prosecution is for the same offence. The relevant test is whether the ingredients of the two offences are identical, not whether the underlying facts overlap. Offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are distinct: the former requires issuance of a cheque towards a legally enforceable liability, dishonour of the cheque, and failure to pay after notice, whereas the latter requires dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception. The existence of parallel proceedings arising from the same transaction therefore does not attract the constitutional or statutory bar.

Conclusion: The plea of double jeopardy and abuse of process was rejected and the prosecution under both enactments was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The complaints were filed during the period covered by the Supreme Court's order excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computing limitation under the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In view of that exclusion, the complaints could not be treated as time-barred and no interference was warranted with the order taking cognizance and issuing process.

Conclusion: The limitation challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were devoid of merit, and the impugned criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Offences are not barred by double jeopardy unless the two prosecutions are for the same offence in the sense of identical ingredients; therefore, prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can proceed simultaneously with prosecution under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 when the statutory ingredients are different.

---