<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (11) TMI 683 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430259</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the revisional application seeking to quash criminal proceedings under various sections of the IPC, finding that the complaint disclosed a cognizable offense requiring thorough investigation. It held that the application for quashing by a power of attorney holder was maintainable and clarified that no preliminary inquiry was needed before registering the FIR. The court noted allegations of forgery and fraudulent use of a blank cheque, discrepancies in demands raised, and rejected claims of abuse of court process. The decision did not impact the petitioner&#039;s rights in the trial court, with all related applications disposed of and interim orders vacated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2022 21:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695898" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 683 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430259</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the revisional application seeking to quash criminal proceedings under various sections of the IPC, finding that the complaint disclosed a cognizable offense requiring thorough investigation. It held that the application for quashing by a power of attorney holder was maintainable and clarified that no preliminary inquiry was needed before registering the FIR. The court noted allegations of forgery and fraudulent use of a blank cheque, discrepancies in demands raised, and rejected claims of abuse of court process. The decision did not impact the petitioner&#039;s rights in the trial court, with all related applications disposed of and interim orders vacated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430259</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>