<?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>2020 (3) TMI 363 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393219</link>
    <description>In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the HC reiterated that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly, only to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. Because the challenge did not cover all material orders and the trial court had already acted on the complaint, Section 200 statements and Section 202 material, the Court held that disputed evidence and factual inconsistencies could not be examined at the quashing stage. As no ground for interference was made out, quashing of the criminal proceedings and related coercive orders was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2020 07:57:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 363 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393219</link>
      <description>In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the HC reiterated that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly, only to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. Because the challenge did not cover all material orders and the trial court had already acted on the complaint, Section 200 statements and Section 202 material, the Court held that disputed evidence and factual inconsistencies could not be examined at the quashing stage. As no ground for interference was made out, quashing of the criminal proceedings and related coercive orders was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>