https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373405 Recording of plea in a summons-case under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not by itself bar the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 227. The petition remained maintainable because the absence of a discharge stage after plea does not prevent scrutiny in an appropriate case, especially where abuse of process is shown on undisputed material. On the merits, unimpeachable documents indicated that the director had resigned before the cheque was issued and dishonoured, so vicarious liability under Section 141 was not made out. The proceedings against that petitioner were therefore liable to be quashed. en-us Mon, 07 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Jan 2019 06:47:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373405 Recording of plea in a summons-case under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not by itself bar the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 227. The petition remained maintainable because the absence of a discharge stage after plea does not prevent scrutiny in an appropriate case, especially where abuse of process is shown on undisputed material. On the merits, unimpeachable documents indicated that the director had resigned before the cheque was issued and dishonoured, so vicarious liability under Section 141 was not made out. The proceedings against that petitioner were therefore liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 07 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373405