<?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>2018 (7) TMI 630 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363322</link>
    <description>A private complaint alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery and use of forged documents was found unsustainable because the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not set out the essential ingredients of those offences. The court noted the admitted entrustment of signed cheques, the pending Section 138 proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the absence of material showing discharge of liability or proof of forgery. The surrounding circumstances suggested animosity and supported the inference that the complaint was filed as a counter blast to the cheque dishonour proceedings. The prosecution was therefore treated as an abuse of process and the complaint was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2018 07:43:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=526493" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 630 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363322</link>
      <description>A private complaint alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery and use of forged documents was found unsustainable because the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not set out the essential ingredients of those offences. The court noted the admitted entrustment of signed cheques, the pending Section 138 proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the absence of material showing discharge of liability or proof of forgery. The surrounding circumstances suggested animosity and supported the inference that the complaint was filed as a counter blast to the cheque dishonour proceedings. The prosecution was therefore treated as an abuse of process and the complaint was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>