https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156803 Where an FIR alleging cheating, forgery and conspiracy arises from a largely contractual land dispute already addressed in civil proceedings, inherent jurisdiction may be used to quash the case if the complaint, taken at face value, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences or shows no dishonest intention at inception. The text also stresses that coercive criminal process must be used sparingly: summons should ordinarily come first, bailable warrants next if needed, and non-bailable warrants only when lesser process would be ineffective or evasion is likely. Mechanical issuance of such warrants is impermissible. en-us Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156803 Where an FIR alleging cheating, forgery and conspiracy arises from a largely contractual land dispute already addressed in civil proceedings, inherent jurisdiction may be used to quash the case if the complaint, taken at face value, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences or shows no dishonest intention at inception. The text also stresses that coercive criminal process must be used sparingly: summons should ordinarily come first, bailable warrants next if needed, and non-bailable warrants only when lesser process would be ineffective or evasion is likely. Mechanical issuance of such warrants is impermissible. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156803