https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414496 A quashing challenge under the Negotiable Instruments Act failed where the cheque bore the applicant's signature and named the complainant as payee. Once execution of the cheque was admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the complainant. The objections that the complainant was not a holder in due course and that the cheque was allegedly issued only to the complainant's husband raised disputed questions of fact, which could not be examined at the Section 482 CrPC stage. The cited precedent was distinguished as inapplicable because the complainant was the payee named on the cheque, and the trial court's process was upheld. en-us Fri, 08 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Nov 2021 06:59:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414496 A quashing challenge under the Negotiable Instruments Act failed where the cheque bore the applicant's signature and named the complainant as payee. Once execution of the cheque was admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the complainant. The objections that the complainant was not a holder in due course and that the cheque was allegedly issued only to the complainant's husband raised disputed questions of fact, which could not be examined at the Section 482 CrPC stage. The cited precedent was distinguished as inapplicable because the complainant was the payee named on the cheque, and the trial court's process was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414496