TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the complaint case, instituted after initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the same cheques and on facts already rejected in those proceedings, amounted to an abuse of the process of the court warranting quashing of the cognizance order and summoning order.
Analysis: The complaint itself showed that the complainant was aware of the dishonour of the cheques before filing the case and that the allegations in the complaint were essentially the complainant's defence to the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The same cheques had already formed the subject matter of criminal proceedings under that Act, and the complainant's defence had been rejected by the trial court as well as the appellate court. In these circumstances, the complaint was treated as a retaliatory proceeding filed after the notice and prosecution under the cheque dishonour law, attracting the settled principle that such proceedings amount to abuse of process.
Conclusion: The cognizance order and the summoning order were unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
Final Conclusion: The application was allowed and the criminal proceeding was set aside as an abuse of the process of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: A complaint instituted as a counterblast to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on substantially the same facts and cheques, and after the complainant's defence has already been rejected in those proceedings, is an abuse of process and can be quashed.
TaxTMI 
