https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398619 In a cheque dishonour complaint, the HC held that inherent jurisdiction to quash could not be exercised where the allegations disclosed a prima facie case and the defence raised disputed questions of fact requiring trial. The court declined to interfere with the summoning order, complaint, or proceedings because the matter did not fit recognised grounds for pre-trial quashing. At the same time, it accepted that cheque dishonour cases may justify early settlement and granted limited time and protection so the accused could appear before the trial court and seek compounding in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 02 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Sep 2020 16:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398619 In a cheque dishonour complaint, the HC held that inherent jurisdiction to quash could not be exercised where the allegations disclosed a prima facie case and the defence raised disputed questions of fact requiring trial. The court declined to interfere with the summoning order, complaint, or proceedings because the matter did not fit recognised grounds for pre-trial quashing. At the same time, it accepted that cheque dishonour cases may justify early settlement and granted limited time and protection so the accused could appear before the trial court and seek compounding in accordance with law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398619