<?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>2019 (8) TMI 1882 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310382</link>
    <description>Criminal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot ordinarily be quashed under section 482 CrPC on the basis of disputed factual defences, including a claim that the cheque was issued only as security rather than in discharge of a legally recoverable debt. Such contentions require appreciation of evidence and are for the trial court, unless the accused produces sterling and impeccable material that conclusively destroys the prosecution case without the need for trial. As the material relied on did not meet that threshold, quashing of the summoning order and proceedings was refused, leaving the accused to pursue the available defences before the trial court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Oct 2023 07:00:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=729875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 1882 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310382</link>
      <description>Criminal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot ordinarily be quashed under section 482 CrPC on the basis of disputed factual defences, including a claim that the cheque was issued only as security rather than in discharge of a legally recoverable debt. Such contentions require appreciation of evidence and are for the trial court, unless the accused produces sterling and impeccable material that conclusively destroys the prosecution case without the need for trial. As the material relied on did not meet that threshold, quashing of the summoning order and proceedings was refused, leaving the accused to pursue the available defences before the trial court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>