https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398942 In a cheque dishonour matter, the High Court declined to quash the complaint, summoning order and criminal proceedings because the materials disclosed a prima facie case and the objections raised involved disputed questions of fact unsuitable for examination at the threshold. The Court applied the settled rule that inherent jurisdiction is not meant for a roving enquiry or to assess the merits of the prosecution pre-trial. At the same time, it granted limited time and interim protection to enable the accused to pursue compounding through compromise before the trial court in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Sep 2020 06:23:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398942 In a cheque dishonour matter, the High Court declined to quash the complaint, summoning order and criminal proceedings because the materials disclosed a prima facie case and the objections raised involved disputed questions of fact unsuitable for examination at the threshold. The Court applied the settled rule that inherent jurisdiction is not meant for a roving enquiry or to assess the merits of the prosecution pre-trial. At the same time, it granted limited time and interim protection to enable the accused to pursue compounding through compromise before the trial court in accordance with law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398942