https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398275 A fresh cognizance and summoning order passed after remand was upheld because the earlier quashing order had set aside only the original cognizance and left other objections open; the later order was based on the complaint material and pre-summoning statement, and the accused had no right to be heard before process at the pre-cognizance stage. The court further held that limitation in a Section 138 complaint is reckoned from the date of filing the complaint, that defects in the complaint concerning authorization and affidavit had already been permitted to be cured, and that such curable issues could not justify quashing. Allegations about blank security cheques and absence of liability were treated as trial issues, not grounds to stifle prosecution under Section 482 CrPC. en-us Mon, 07 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Sep 2020 11:51:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398275 A fresh cognizance and summoning order passed after remand was upheld because the earlier quashing order had set aside only the original cognizance and left other objections open; the later order was based on the complaint material and pre-summoning statement, and the accused had no right to be heard before process at the pre-cognizance stage. The court further held that limitation in a Section 138 complaint is reckoned from the date of filing the complaint, that defects in the complaint concerning authorization and affidavit had already been permitted to be cured, and that such curable issues could not justify quashing. Allegations about blank security cheques and absence of liability were treated as trial issues, not grounds to stifle prosecution under Section 482 CrPC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 07 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398275