https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753775 A plea that a cheque was issued for a time-barred debt does not ordinarily justify quashing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the summoning stage. Once issuance and dishonour of the cheque are shown, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate, and whether the underlying liability was legally enforceable is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence at trial. The High Court was therefore not justified in invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to terminate the complaint at the threshold, and the quashing order was set aside with the complaint restored for trial. en-us Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Jun 2024 07:55:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753775 A plea that a cheque was issued for a time-barred debt does not ordinarily justify quashing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the summoning stage. Once issuance and dishonour of the cheque are shown, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate, and whether the underlying liability was legally enforceable is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence at trial. The High Court was therefore not justified in invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to terminate the complaint at the threshold, and the quashing order was set aside with the complaint restored for trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753775