<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (7) TMI 622 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330024</link>
    <description>A criminal complaint under Section 411 read with Section 120B IPC was quashed as misconceived and an abuse of the process of court because the admitted facts showed an underlying civil and commercial transaction, earlier cheques issued in the financial arrangement, and pending cheque-dishonour proceedings. The Court treated the complaint as a reaction to that existing commercial dispute rather than a bona fide criminal prosecution, and continued criminal proceedings were not warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2016 22:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435093" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 622 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330024</link>
      <description>A criminal complaint under Section 411 read with Section 120B IPC was quashed as misconceived and an abuse of the process of court because the admitted facts showed an underlying civil and commercial transaction, earlier cheques issued in the financial arrangement, and pending cheque-dishonour proceedings. The Court treated the complaint as a reaction to that existing commercial dispute rather than a bona fide criminal prosecution, and continued criminal proceedings were not warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>