https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354009 The High Court of Madras allowed the quash petition filed by the petitioner, ruling in favor of quashing the private complaint against the petitioner in C.C.No.482 of 2006. The court found that the complaint failed to establish the necessary elements to attract Section 141(ii) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, as it did not specify the petitioner's role and responsibilities within the company. This decision was supported by a judgment highlighting the importance of specific averments regarding an individual's involvement in the company for criminal prosecution. en-us Tue, 02 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:26:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354009 The High Court of Madras allowed the quash petition filed by the petitioner, ruling in favor of quashing the private complaint against the petitioner in C.C.No.482 of 2006. The court found that the complaint failed to establish the necessary elements to attract Section 141(ii) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, as it did not specify the petitioner's role and responsibilities within the company. This decision was supported by a judgment highlighting the importance of specific averments regarding an individual's involvement in the company for criminal prosecution. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354009