https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446984 Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to test a defence that depends on evidence where the ingredients of a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution are prima facie satisfied. The cheque was presented within validity, dishonoured, and a demand notice was issued; the alleged defect in the notice was unsupported by any concrete explanation and did not justify quashing. The Court held that the petitioners' objections, including absence of cause of action, had to be examined by the trial court, where the accused could raise defences, seek recall of witnesses, and lead evidence under the applicable trial framework. en-us Wed, 29 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Dec 2023 09:55:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446984 Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to test a defence that depends on evidence where the ingredients of a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution are prima facie satisfied. The cheque was presented within validity, dishonoured, and a demand notice was issued; the alleged defect in the notice was unsupported by any concrete explanation and did not justify quashing. The Court held that the petitioners' objections, including absence of cause of action, had to be examined by the trial court, where the accused could raise defences, seek recall of witnesses, and lead evidence under the applicable trial framework. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446984