https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188283 A subsequent criminal complaint based on the same transaction as earlier pending complaints was treated as an abuse of process because it substantially overlapped on the foundational facts and failed to disclose the earlier proceedings. The later complaint merely added further penal provisions without any material distinction in the underlying transaction. Applying the rule against multiplicity of criminal proceedings on the same set of facts, the court held that the third complaint and consequential proceedings were liable to be quashed as an impermissible duplicated prosecution. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:16:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188283 A subsequent criminal complaint based on the same transaction as earlier pending complaints was treated as an abuse of process because it substantially overlapped on the foundational facts and failed to disclose the earlier proceedings. The later complaint merely added further penal provisions without any material distinction in the underlying transaction. Applying the rule against multiplicity of criminal proceedings on the same set of facts, the court held that the third complaint and consequential proceedings were liable to be quashed as an impermissible duplicated prosecution. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188283