https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304238 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against a partnership firm and its partners, the High Court held that quashing under Section 482 CrPC was not warranted merely because the complaint did not specifically name the partner in charge of the business. The complaint alleged dishonoured cheques issued in settlement, notice was served on all partners, and the accused materials did not clearly identify one responsible partner or exclude the others. As the petitioners' own pleadings were inconsistent on who issued the cheques and managed the firm, the Court found no basis to invoke inherent powers at the threshold and declined to quash the proceedings. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:45:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304238 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against a partnership firm and its partners, the High Court held that quashing under Section 482 CrPC was not warranted merely because the complaint did not specifically name the partner in charge of the business. The complaint alleged dishonoured cheques issued in settlement, notice was served on all partners, and the accused materials did not clearly identify one responsible partner or exclude the others. As the petitioners' own pleadings were inconsistent on who issued the cheques and managed the firm, the Court found no basis to invoke inherent powers at the threshold and declined to quash the proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304238