https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185754 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was tested for quashing on grounds of alleged non-application of mind, absence of a legally enforceable debt, and the complainant's claimed status as an unregistered moneylender. The materials referred to a loan advanced for repayment after ninety days, issuance of the cheque towards repayment, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of statutory notice, and filing within limitation, supporting a prima facie offence under Section 138. The summoning order was found to reflect due scrutiny of the preliminary evidence, and the court reiterated that inherent and supervisory jurisdiction is to be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process. The moneylender objection was treated as a defence requiring evidence, not a threshold bar, and quashing was declined. en-us Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Aug 2016 17:33:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185754 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was tested for quashing on grounds of alleged non-application of mind, absence of a legally enforceable debt, and the complainant's claimed status as an unregistered moneylender. The materials referred to a loan advanced for repayment after ninety days, issuance of the cheque towards repayment, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of statutory notice, and filing within limitation, supporting a prima facie offence under Section 138. The summoning order was found to reflect due scrutiny of the preliminary evidence, and the court reiterated that inherent and supervisory jurisdiction is to be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process. The moneylender objection was treated as a defence requiring evidence, not a threshold bar, and quashing was declined. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185754