Sahal&associates

25/02/2026

19/02/2026

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 17) acquitted a man convicted of murdering his six-year-old stepdaughter, ruling that a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of evidence is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act only if the accused was in police custody at the time of making the statement.
Link in comment box

14/02/2026

Bank's Internal Classification Of Debt As NPA Won't Determine Limitation Under IBC: Supreme Court

15/07/2025

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 14) set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment that held that recording a wife's telephonic conversation without her knowledge amounts to a "clear breach" of her fundamental right of privacy and cannot be admitted in evidence before a Family Court.

Link in comment box

04/11/2024

The Karnataka High Court has held that a complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be maintainable, notwithstanding the civil suit filed for recovery of the money.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus white dismissing a petition filed by one Lalji Kesha Vaid. It said “The complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act would be maintainable, notwithstanding recovery proceedings initiated by institution of a civil Suit, though both spring from the same cause of action.”

Vaid had challenged the order of the trial court issuing summons to him on a private complaint filed by Dayanand R under Section 138 of the Act. He argued that once having instituted a civil suit for the purpose of recovery of money of the very sum and the Court decreeing the suit even at a later point in time, would bar setting criminal law into motion for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.

The complainant opposed the plea submitting that instituting a civil suit is for the purpose of damages and mere institution of civil suit would not bar criminal law being set into motion, for dishonour of a cheque that was presented for realisation on account of non-payment.

The bench relied on Apex court judgment in the case of D.PURUSHOTAMA REDDY v. K.SATEESH, (2008) 8 SCC 505 wherein the court had held that two proceedings are maintainable. The two would be a civil suit seeking recovery of amount and a proceeding for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.

The court held “Since the entire petition is framed on the aforesaid ground and the ground is answered to be unsustainable, there is no warrant to interfere in the criminal proceedings set into motion by the respondent. In the result, finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected.”

Appearance: Advocate V Sudhakar for Petitioner

Advocate Vijetha R Naik for Respondent

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 450

Case Title: Lalji Kesha Vaid AND Dayanand R

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.331 OF 2022.