https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391968 Where the genuineness of disputed receipts was already sub judice in a pending civil suit, the FIR alleging forgery and cheating was quashed because the handwriting expert's opinion was only evidentiary and not conclusive, and continuation of the criminal case would prejudice the civil proceedings and amount to abuse of process. In contrast, the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be quashed at the threshold because issuance of the cheques was admitted, statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 arose, and the defence required trial evidence. The FIR was quashed, while the cheque dishonour complaint was restored for trial. en-us Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391968 Where the genuineness of disputed receipts was already sub judice in a pending civil suit, the FIR alleging forgery and cheating was quashed because the handwriting expert's opinion was only evidentiary and not conclusive, and continuation of the criminal case would prejudice the civil proceedings and amount to abuse of process. In contrast, the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be quashed at the threshold because issuance of the cheques was admitted, statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 arose, and the defence required trial evidence. The FIR was quashed, while the cheque dishonour complaint was restored for trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391968