https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754065 The Bombay HC dismissed a petition challenging the legality of a second FIR regarding forex remittance fraud through forged documents. The court held that the forged Bills of Entry used in RC 11(E)/2022 were distinct from those in RC 04(E)/2017, involving different sets of documents submitted to banks. Citing SC precedents, the court noted that while second FIRs for the same cognizable offence or occurrence are impermissible, these cases involved separate transactions with different accused persons, amounts, and timeframes. The court distinguished this from cases involving the same transaction, ruling that both FIRs could proceed independently as they pertained to distinct offences and separate causes of action. en-us Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Jun 2024 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754065 The Bombay HC dismissed a petition challenging the legality of a second FIR regarding forex remittance fraud through forged documents. The court held that the forged Bills of Entry used in RC 11(E)/2022 were distinct from those in RC 04(E)/2017, involving different sets of documents submitted to banks. Citing SC precedents, the court noted that while second FIRs for the same cognizable offence or occurrence are impermissible, these cases involved separate transactions with different accused persons, amounts, and timeframes. The court distinguished this from cases involving the same transaction, ruling that both FIRs could proceed independently as they pertained to distinct offences and separate causes of action. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754065