https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312493 Specific allegations that the accused induced the complainant to invest money on promises of repayment and profit-sharing, then refused to return the amount and assaulted him when repayment was demanded, were sufficient to disclose a prima facie case. On those pleaded facts, the High Court held that cognizance for offences of cheating and hurt could not be quashed at the threshold merely on the contention that no offence was made out. The quashing application was dismissed. en-us Thu, 05 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Feb 2024 05:51:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312493 Specific allegations that the accused induced the complainant to invest money on promises of repayment and profit-sharing, then refused to return the amount and assaulted him when repayment was demanded, were sufficient to disclose a prima facie case. On those pleaded facts, the High Court held that cognizance for offences of cheating and hurt could not be quashed at the threshold merely on the contention that no offence was made out. The quashing application was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312493