https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409104 Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised to quash cheating proceedings where unimpeachable defence material shows that the criminal case is inconsistent with prior admitted records and the dispute is substantially civil. Here, earlier Section 138 proceedings and a civil suit indicated that the complainant had treated another person as the proprietor and signatory of the business concern, materially undermining the later allegations against the applicants. On that basis, the complaint was treated as mala fide, the alleged dishonest intention from inception was found absent, and the prosecution was characterised as an abuse of process. en-us Fri, 18 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409104 Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised to quash cheating proceedings where unimpeachable defence material shows that the criminal case is inconsistent with prior admitted records and the dispute is substantially civil. Here, earlier Section 138 proceedings and a civil suit indicated that the complainant had treated another person as the proprietor and signatory of the business concern, materially undermining the later allegations against the applicants. On that basis, the complaint was treated as mala fide, the alleged dishonest intention from inception was found absent, and the prosecution was characterised as an abuse of process. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409104