https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771196 A writ petition seeking quashing of a criminal complaint was held not maintainable when the same grounds had already been raised in a discharge application and could be pursued in revision. The challenge invoked double jeopardy arguments under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC, but those objections had already been taken before the Magistrate under Section 245(2) CrPC, and the dismissal of that application had been carried into the revisional process. In these circumstances, the writ was treated as a parallel challenge that would bypass the statutory remedy, and the complaint was not quashed. en-us Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 May 2025 08:21:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771196 A writ petition seeking quashing of a criminal complaint was held not maintainable when the same grounds had already been raised in a discharge application and could be pursued in revision. The challenge invoked double jeopardy arguments under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC, but those objections had already been taken before the Magistrate under Section 245(2) CrPC, and the dismissal of that application had been carried into the revisional process. In these circumstances, the writ was treated as a parallel challenge that would bypass the statutory remedy, and the complaint was not quashed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771196