https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445161 Delhi HC reiterated that inherent quashing jurisdiction should not be used to decide disputed factual questions in a Section 138 prosecution. It declined to quash the complaint or summoning order on the plea that the complainant was not the payee or holder in due course and had acted under an authority letter, noting that the underlying transaction, signatures, dishonour, and issuance of cheques were not disputed. Objections to the execution and validity of the authority letter and to the non-certification of the bank return memo were treated as matters for trial, not quashing. A single complaint covering nine dishonoured cheques arising from the same transaction was also not held impermissible at the threshold. en-us Tue, 31 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Nov 2023 08:28:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445161 Delhi HC reiterated that inherent quashing jurisdiction should not be used to decide disputed factual questions in a Section 138 prosecution. It declined to quash the complaint or summoning order on the plea that the complainant was not the payee or holder in due course and had acted under an authority letter, noting that the underlying transaction, signatures, dishonour, and issuance of cheques were not disputed. Objections to the execution and validity of the authority letter and to the non-certification of the bank return memo were treated as matters for trial, not quashing. A single complaint covering nine dishonoured cheques arising from the same transaction was also not held impermissible at the threshold. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 31 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445161