https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449859 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be sustained because the pleaded facts did not show the mandatory statutory notice and other required steps for a cheque dishonour prosecution, and the matter had already been pursued through an FIR rather than that special remedy. The petitioner was therefore relieved from liability under that provision. By contrast, the allegations under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code were allowed to proceed because the record showed a disputed factual matrix on inducement, the transaction, the claimed technology, and the supporting documents; those disputes could not be resolved in Section 482 proceedings, and the materials disclosed a prima facie case and sufficient suspicion to refuse discharge. en-us Sat, 17 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Feb 2024 19:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449859 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be sustained because the pleaded facts did not show the mandatory statutory notice and other required steps for a cheque dishonour prosecution, and the matter had already been pursued through an FIR rather than that special remedy. The petitioner was therefore relieved from liability under that provision. By contrast, the allegations under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code were allowed to proceed because the record showed a disputed factual matrix on inducement, the transaction, the claimed technology, and the supporting documents; those disputes could not be resolved in Section 482 proceedings, and the materials disclosed a prima facie case and sufficient suspicion to refuse discharge. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 17 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449859