TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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 and the order issuing process disclosed a prima facie case for offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act and Ranbir Penal Code, and whether the High Court should exercise inherent powers to quash the proceedings.
Analysis: The complaint alleged issuance of a cheque, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of demand notice, non-payment, and subsequent assault and threats on demand for payment. These allegations were held to disclose the ingredients of the cheque dishonour offence and also to support the connected penal allegations arising out of the same transaction. The governing principles for quashing require the High Court to act sparingly and only where the complaint does not disclose an offence, is frivolous, vexatious, or amounts to an abuse of process. On the pleaded facts, the complaint could not be treated as such, and the trial court's cognizance and issuance of process were found to be proper.
Conclusion: The request to quash the complaint and process was rejected; the proceedings were held maintainable and no ground for interference under inherent jurisdiction was made out.
Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and only where the complaint, read as a whole, does not disclose any offence or is manifestly abusive, frivolous, or vexatious; where the complaint prima facie discloses the ingredients of the alleged offences, quashing is not warranted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
