https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760938 Withdrawal of an earlier complaint and Section 156(3) application before cognizance did not bar a later FIR based on the same broad transaction, because the prohibition is against a second FIR on the same cause of action, not an FIR already registered while complaint proceedings were pending. The Court also noted that the investigation materials disclosed a prima facie case, while the defence raised disputed questions about the underlying transaction, alleged misuse of blank cheques, and signatures. Those factual disputes were held unsuitable for quashing in writ or inherent jurisdiction, so no interference with the FIR and chargesheet was warranted. en-us Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Oct 2024 19:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760938 Withdrawal of an earlier complaint and Section 156(3) application before cognizance did not bar a later FIR based on the same broad transaction, because the prohibition is against a second FIR on the same cause of action, not an FIR already registered while complaint proceedings were pending. The Court also noted that the investigation materials disclosed a prima facie case, while the defence raised disputed questions about the underlying transaction, alleged misuse of blank cheques, and signatures. Those factual disputes were held unsuitable for quashing in writ or inherent jurisdiction, so no interference with the FIR and chargesheet was warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760938