-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR for embezzlement, citing the distinct legal grounds required under different statutes. The case, titled “Jitendra Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others,” dealt with the alleged embezzlement of Rs. 1.59 crores.
The petitioners had approached the court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), contending that their fundamental rights were being violated due to double jeopardy. They argued that similar charges were already being pursued under the Negotiable Instruments Act (NIA) for the same amount, thus constituting double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution.
In its judgment, the court observed, “While there may be an overlap in the factual basis of the NIA and IPC proceedings, the different requirements for proving offences under each statute mean that pursuing charges under both does not constitute double jeopardy.” This observation formed the crux of the court’s decision, emphasizing the distinct legal requirements under the NIA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The complainants maintained that the proceedings under the NIA and IPC are inherently different, especially regarding the necessity to prove criminal intent (mens rea) in IPC offences. The court, referencing several Supreme Court decisions, upheld this view.
The judgment further stated, “The Court concludes that the petitioners can be prosecuted under both the NIA and IPC.” Consequently, the petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed, with the court granting liberty to the petitioners to file afresh following the decision of a larger bench of the Supreme Court. The court also provided the petitioners exemption from personal appearance in the trial court, except when necessary.
Date of Decision: 20th November 2023
Jitendra Singh and Another VS State of Punjab and Others
