https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273748 The FIR was quashed because the allegations did not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust. The Court also found that the criminal proceeding had been initiated to pre-empt action under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, rather than to address a genuine criminal wrong. In those circumstances, continuation of the prosecution was treated as an abuse of process of court, and the High Court's order quashing the FIR was upheld. en-us Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:29:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273748 The FIR was quashed because the allegations did not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust. The Court also found that the criminal proceeding had been initiated to pre-empt action under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, rather than to address a genuine criminal wrong. In those circumstances, continuation of the prosecution was treated as an abuse of process of court, and the High Court's order quashing the FIR was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273748