https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300461 A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the connected summoning order were not liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC where the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and the cheque was pleaded to have been treated as security for a second transaction after liability was admitted. The Court found the averments on directors' responsibility for the company's affairs substantially compliant, and held that disputed factual defences, including the cheque's character and the effect of resignation, could not be examined at the threshold because they required evidence and cross-examination. Interference under inherent jurisdiction was confined to extraordinary cases of manifest injustice, which was not shown, so quashing was declined. en-us Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Feb 2022 15:02:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300461 A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the connected summoning order were not liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC where the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and the cheque was pleaded to have been treated as security for a second transaction after liability was admitted. The Court found the averments on directors' responsibility for the company's affairs substantially compliant, and held that disputed factual defences, including the cheque's character and the effect of resignation, could not be examined at the threshold because they required evidence and cross-examination. Interference under inherent jurisdiction was confined to extraordinary cases of manifest injustice, which was not shown, so quashing was declined. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300461